INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education
Practices in Grades 7-9

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Amy G. Pfender
California University PennWest
July 2023

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

i

Dedication
I dedicate the final product of my doctoral capstone to my family. We are a small family
made up of two houses and five people on a hill in a rural community, but we are mighty
in our dedication to growth and progress. To my father Dennis, your support began in
1996 as I graduated from high school and began a journey in education that I never
anticipated landing where I am currently. Your quiet support and availability mean more
than you know. To my children, Jonah and Emily, though I worked really hard to not
miss your events or to try to be mentally present, I know that I was not always successful.
However, you did not complain, and you seemed to understand in your own way. I only
hope that the nights we all sat at the kitchen table working have given you a model to not
settle and constantly strive for personal and professional growth. To my husband Keith,
since 1994 as high school students we have navigated life together. You were the one
who thought earning my doctorate would be a good idea. I did not listen for some time,
but ultimately, your love and support got me to this place. Finally, I would be remiss to
not recognize my mother, Roberta. In 2015, a different plan was in place for you, but we
have all found the strength and courage to march onward in your absence. It was your
support in everything that I did that provided me with the final push to achieve this goal.
I love you all!

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

ii

Acknowledgements
Dr. Sharon K. Suritsky, thank you for your leadership, friendship, and words of
encouragement throughout this process. During my interview in 2005, I knew that if
hired by the Upper St. Clair School District, that I would learn from you and continue to
grow as an educator. Dr. John T. Rozzo, thank you for your mentorship, friendship, and
patience as I did this at my own rate. Dr. Todd E. Keruskin, thank you for your words of
encouragement, “Press On” and feedback throughout this process. Finally, I am grateful
to the Upper St. Clair School District and amazing colleagues for providing me with the
opportunity to be an educator and administrator in a district of excellence and allowing
me to earn my doctorate by studying a topic that is so meaningful to me.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

iii

Table of Contents
Signature
Dedication

i

Acknowledgements

ii

Table of Contents

iii

List of Tables

vi

List of Figures

vii

Abstract

viii

CHPATER 1

1

Introduction

1

CHPATER II

7

Literature Review

7

Terms and Definitions

8

Special Education Then and Now

9

Special Education Landmark Legal Cases Related to Inclusionary

12

Practices
Education Guidelines and Requirements

15

Delivery of Special Education Services

22

Inclusive Education

24

Inclusionary Practices in the Classroom

26

Benefits and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education

29

Teachers’ Beliefs on Inclusionary Practices

31

District Special Education Profile

33

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
Summary

iv
36

CHAPTER III
Methodology

38

Purpose

39

Setting and Participants

42

Intervention and Research Plan

44

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

50

Validity

53

Limitations

55

Summary

56

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results

58

Data Analysis

58

Results

60
Special Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis

61

Special Education Teacher Interview Analysis

64

General Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis

66

General Education Teacher Interview Analysis

71

Implementing Consistent Inclusionary Practices

73

IEP Checklist Analysis

74

Discussion

81

Summary

82

CHAPTER V

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

v

Conclusions and Recommendations

84

Conclusions

85

Research Question 1

86

Research Question 2

87

Research Question 3

88

Research Question 4

89

Application and Implications

89

Fiscal Implication

93

Limitations

94

Future Areas of Examination

96

Summary

98

References

100

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Guide

105

Appendix B. General Education Teacher Questionnaire

107

Appendix C. Special Education Teacher Questionnaire

108

Appendix D. IEP Checklist

109

Appendix E. Semi-Structured Interview Guide Disclosure

111

Appendix F. Participation in Questionnaire for General and Special Education Teachers
Disclosure
Appendix G. IRB Approval Letter

112
113

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Participants in the Semi-Structured Interview

47

Table 2. Data Collection Timeline

52

Table 3. Special Education Teacher Perceptions

65

Table 4. General Education Teacher Perceptions

72

Table 5. Themes of Recommendations or Suggestions

74

Table 6. 7th Grade Frequently Identified SDI

77

Table 7. 8th Grade Frequently Identified SDI

79

Table 8. 9th Grade Frequently Identified SDI

80

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Special Educator Across Grade Levels

62

Figure 2. Special Educator Across Own Classes

62

Figure 3. Special Educator Across Grade Levels

62

Figure 4. General Educator Across Grade Levels

68

Figure 5. General Educator Across Own Classes

68

Figure 6. General Educator Across Content Areas

69

Figure 7. 7th Grade Type of Special Education Support

76

Figure 8. 8th Grade Type of Special Education Support

78

Figure 9. 9th Grade Type of Special Education Support

80

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

viii

Abstract
The inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices creates varied educational
experiences for special education students and teachers (general education and special
education). Varied educational experiences leads to requests for different teachers,
potential legal concerns related to the implementation of IEPs, and concerns for program
effectiveness. Therefore, this study focused on the inconsistent implementation of
inclusionary practices. The goal of the study was to provide recommendations and
conclusions that lead to more consistent and fluid experiences for students and teachers
across classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. In addition, it is important for the
district to collect baseline data in this area as professional development now can focus on
areas that have not been part of the professional development plan over the last two years
due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. By utilizing an action research study approach, the
information gathered was first-hand information from general and special education
teachers in order to provide recommendations that will be more easily implemented due
to the input of individuals directly working in the field. The implementation of consistent
inclusionary practices will increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of
learning and collaboration, and though necessary to under the law to have individualized
practices, all students will be able to have access to learning experiences that are rooted
in best inclusionary practices.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

1

Chapter I
Background
This study focused on investigating the implementation of inconsistent
inclusionary special education practices in grades 7-9. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
specialized focus and professional development in the areas of special education supports
and services has been limited due to other educational priorities. Despite the school
district’s strong history of educating students receiving special education services in the
general education classroom for the majority of the school day, concerns have been raised
regarding how consistently inclusionary practices are implemented across grade levels,
content areas, and classes. Also, concerns have been expressed related to the
implementation of specially designed instruction when a student transitions from one
building to the next within the district.
The researcher has an extensive knowledge, interest, and background in special
education programming. As part of this action research study, the researcher hopes to
analyze the data collected in order to provide tangible and manageable recommendations
to address the research study area of concern. An analysis of student IEPs will provide
insight to specially designed instruction being developed by the IEP team to support
students in the least restrictive environment. By collecting data through questionnaires
and semi-structured interviews from educators implementing special education services,
the data will be concrete and valuable in driving improvement as a goal of this action
research project.
Inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices creates varied educational
experiences for special education students and teachers (general education and special

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

2

education). In addition to varied experiences for students and teachers, other unintended
results may occur with requests for specific teachers or even potential legal implications
for the district. It is essential that teachers understand what is meant by inclusionary
practices and how to work collaboratively in order to provide a consistent experience that
is in alignment with a student’s individualized education plan (IEP).
Capstone Focus
The focus for this research is to utilize qualitative data collection measures to
further understand the implementation of special education inclusionary practices and
why the implementation is inconsistent at times resulting in varied experiences. Though
an IEP is meant to be individualized, the specially designed instruction developed for
students within the IEP can have similar accommodations and modifications providing
access to education in the least restrictive environment. However, the interpretation and
implementation of the accommodations and modifications has varied from teacher to
teacher, class to class, and grade to grade. Therefore, students and guardians may
experience frustration within the special education framework. As a result, educators
may also experience frustrations. The researcher is a student-centered district
administrator who takes seriously the experiences of students, but also recognizes that
staff need support in providing a consistent experience for students. Therefore, the desire
to research this area is rooted in student outcomes and experiences with a focus on
supporting a key element of this success-the classroom teacher.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the action research study:

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
•

3

What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?
Focus on this question will occur through the completion of a voluntary

questionnaire completed by special educators teaching students in grades 7-9. A semistructured interview protocol has been developed. Responses from the questionnaire may
guide further question development. Teachers who completed the questionnaire will also
be included in an interview to gather further insight on the perceptions of special
education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices.
•

What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?
Six randomly selected general educators from each grade level in grades 7-9 and

three electives/expressive arts teachers, totaling 21 general educators, will be selected to
complete a voluntary questionnaire. Two randomly selected general educators from each
grade level in grades 7-9, totaling six, will be selected to participate in the semistructured interview process. An interview protocol has been developed. Responses
from the questionnaires may generate additional questions to include in the semistructured interview protocols.
•

What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized
education plans?
To collect data for this identified research question, an IEP checklist list for

evaluating inclusionary practices has been developed. IEPs will be randomly selected at
each grade level. In grades 7-9, 15 IEPs at each grade level, totaling 45, will be
evaluated.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
•

4

What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?
In order to gain insight on the observable inclusionary practices, the data gathered

through the semi-structured interview protocols will be analyzed to yield information
related to this question.
Based on the research questions of the study, data will be gathered utilizing
several qualitative data collection measures. The measures include questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and a researcher developed IEP checklist. All data collected will
be analyzed for emerging themes to support the conclusions and recommendations.
Expected Outcomes
The study will provide insight and baseline information on the reasons why
inclusionary practices are implemented inconsistently within classrooms, grade levels,
and content areas. In addition, the feedback received from study participants will be a
strong foundation to provide suggestions on how to address the identified focus of the
study. When all data is collected, analyzed, and grouped, the final anticipated product
will be to create a training framework to guide professional development for staff
working with students receiving special education supports and services. In any given
year, teachers could self-assess where they “fit” in this framework to determine what
levels of professional development may need to be provided. A developed framework
that includes self-evaluation can lead to more individualized, meaningful, and concrete
professional development based on the perceptions and needs of the educators related to a
student or students IEP. When targeted professional development is provided for
educators, it can be hypothesized that consistent implementation of inclusionary services
resulting in consistent classroom experiences will occur.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

5

Fiscal Implications
When discussing fiscal implications related to this research study, the
implications will most likely be rooted in costs connected to professional development
and time. In addition, the costs will be minimal in comparison to the overall district
budget and may potentially be built into various budget areas, such as professional
development, as part of the district’s budget process. The district’s special education
budget is already evidence of the required financial contribution to implementing a
continuum of supports and services for special education students. Ultimately, the use of
district funds is to provide further consistency for teachers and students to avoid the
unintended consequences of implementing special education inclusionary practices
inconsistently.
Summary
At the conclusion of the study recommendations will be provided in order to
support the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices to increase programmatic
fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and though necessary
under the law to have individualized practices, all students will be able to have access to
learning experiences that are rooted in best inclusionary practices. At this point, the goal
will be to provide recommendations related to professional development, best practices
for special educators and general educators, and a potential review of personnel levels to
determine if additional staff could also provide another tier of support to increase
programmatic fidelity.
Special education practices are rooted in history, mandates and laws, and
historical legal cases. It is essential to review literature rooted in special education to

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
better understand the growth of special education inclusionary practices and
requirements. The literature examined will help guide the study and provide further
support for implementation of the recommendations of the study.

6

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

7

Chapter II
Literature Review
In order to understand the essential role of and implementation of inclusionary
practices within a special education program framework, it is necessary to know what is
special education, how special education has evolved in response to landmark legal cases
and educational reform, and the varied approaches to providing special education services
in the least restrictive environment. According to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), Sec. 300.39, special education is defined as “specially designed
instruction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability”.
Furthermore, a child with a disability is a child who qualifies under any of the 13 federal
disability categories and is in need of special education supports and services. According
to Hallahan and Kauffman (1978, p. 4) “special education means specially designed
instruction which meets the unique needs of an exceptional child.”
In the 2021-2022 school year, 1,684,754 students were students with a disability
receiving special education supports and services in the state of Pennsylvania. Within the
identified school district 522 students or 13.3% of students enrolled in the district were
receiving special education supports and services. On average, 68.2% of students
received special education services within the regular education setting 80% or more of
the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). One of the biggest goals of
special education inclusionary practices is for students to receive instruction in the least
restrictive environment with non-disabled peers.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

8

Terms and Definitions
In the field of special education, many terms are utilized related to the
environment, requirements, and instruction. When examining special education
practices, it is important to have an understanding of the most common terms and
acronyms.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)-Special Education and related services that
have been provided at public expense and supervision and provided in alignment with the
individualized education program (IEP) (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020).
General/Regular Education Classroom-Classroom that all nondisabled students receive
instruction, but can include both nondisabled and disabled students.
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)-Primary legal document of the IDEA statute where
the educational program for a student with a disability is put together (Rodriguez &
Murawski, 2020). A student’s IEP team will meet to determine the necessary specially
designed instruction for the student to meet their full potential in the least restrictive
environment.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)- With supplementary aids and services, children
with disabilities are to be educated with non-disabled children to the maximum extent
appropriate.
Procedural Safeguards-Safeguard to protect the rights of students with disabilities as
well as their families. Rights included, but not limited to, parental participation, access to
educational records, due process, civil action, and mediation (Western Governors
University, 2020).

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

9

Related Service-Transportation and services that are necessary to assist a child with a
disability to benefit from special education.
Special Education (Self-Contained/Pull-Out/Resource) Classroom-Classroom that only
students with disabilities can receive instruction; instruction and supports are specialized.
Typically, the class size is smaller than a general education classroom.
Supplementary Aids and Services-Services and other supports that are provided in
educational settings, extracurricular activities, and non-academic settings for students
with disabilities that enable participation/inclusion with non-disabled children to the
fullest extent possible (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
Special Education Then and Now
One of the first acts supporting students with disabilities through federal funding
was passed in 1958, “An Act to Encourage Expansion of Teaching in the Education of
Mentally Retarded Children through Grants to Institutions of Higher Learning and to Sate
Educational Agencies”. This law provided funding to support students studying the
education of children with mental retardation. This law was the first of its kind to
support training in order to create a platform for the next 20 years that supported the
inclusion of students with disabilities (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020).
Beginning in 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was
passed by the United States Congress to provide federal funding to fight the achievement
gap that was growing between low-income, neglected, and homeless families and higherincome families, but did not address the needs of individuals with disabilities. Out of
ESEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was put into place in 1973. Section 504
provides that “individuals with a disability shall not be excluded from participation in, be

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

10

denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination based on the fact that he or she has a
disability” (Young et al., 2018). With the passing of the Rehabilitation Act by Congress,
additional federal mandates would be forthcoming to further ensure special education
services to students with disabilities being provided with educational services in a setting
receiving federal funding. Prior to the 1970’s, individuals with disabilities had limited
educational rights and options. In fact, in 1970, schools in the United States only
educated one in five children with disabilities (United States Department of Education,
2022).
In 1975, Public Law 94-142: The Education for all Handicapped Children Act
(EHA) was written. Then, in 1990, EHA was revised and renamed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to improve upon special education supports and
services requiring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) be made available to
students along with related services (Young et al., 2018). Several updates to IDEA have
taken place over the years to continue to provide enhancements to the laws guiding
special education services. Updates took place in 1997 and in 2004. The 1997 update
included further regulations to enhance parent/guardian participation in the IEP process
and students had increased access to meaningful and measurable programs (Western
Governors University, 2022). The 2004 update was identified as IDEIA (though still
referred to as IDEA) and brought alignment to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001 focusing on accountability. Special education teachers must be highly qualified and
instruction utilizing evidenced-based practices had to be implemented. Lengyel and
Vanbergeijk (2021) identify the seven guiding principles that have remained consistent:
1. All students have a right to a free and public education (FAPE)

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

11

2. All students have a right to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE)
3. All student have a right to an Individualized Education program (IEP)
4. Non-Discriminatory assessment and evaluation
5. Parent Involvement
6. Due process procedural safeguards
7. Zero Reject (p. 26)
Based on the various governmental regulations, special education programming,
and services are now guided by legislative mandates, educational reform, and legal
decisions. As a result of special education regulations, students with disabilities have the
right to now receive a free and appropriate public education, education in the least
restrictive environment, and instruction that gives consideration to a full range of
supplementary aids and services. During the 2018-19 school year, 7.5 million children
with disabilities received special education services to meet their individual needs with
64% of students receiving instruction in the general education classroom for more than
80% of the school day (United States Department of Education, 2022).
Early programs for disabled individuals were limited and left the disabled
individual feeling stigmatized prior to any educational mandates. Terms describing the
disabled individual were demeaning and lacked understanding of the needs of an
individual. Involvement in society, let alone educational settings, was non-existent. The
dismal conditions in hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill and disabled began to
drive the need for change and advocacy for disabled individuals to receive a free and
appropriate public education. The federal support in education for students with

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

12

disabilities began to change the way society viewed individuals with disabilities through
grants, research, and education for those interested in understanding individuals with
disabilities.
Special Education Landmark Legal Cases Related to Inclusionary Practices
Intertwined with legislative mandates and educational reform are landmark legal
case decisions that have contributed to the evolution of inclusionary practices. Education
in an inclusive setting and education that meets students’ needs through appropriate
special education supports and services is at the core of many high-level court cases.
In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education started to pave the road for equal and
inclusive rights in education with the ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States
that separate was not equal. Segregation based on race within the school setting was
ruled a violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America. As a result, disability activists began the argument that disabled students were
also being excluded from public education or educated in substandard conditions
(Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Separation based on race or disability was a form of
discrimination.
PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens) vs. the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania ended in a settlement agreement in 1972. The basic concept behind the
case was that equal treatment under the law is a civil rights issue. Out of the settlement
agreement, a free public education and due process protections for all students with
intellectual disabilities was required. The PARC Consent Decree would later become the
basis for federal statute within the Education for all Handicapped Children Act in 1975
and later to become IDEA in 1990 (Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Regardless of the

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

13

federal statute, this case became the basis of establishing how children with disabilities
could benefit from educational programs in the public education sector.
Nearly a decade later in 1982, a ruling was provided in the case of The Board of
Education v. Rowley. The United States Supreme Court addressed the level of services
necessary to meet the standard of FAPE under IDEA (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). It
was determined that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide access to related
services and receive educational benefit.
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 1993
introduced a three-prong test in considering what is the appropriate least restrictive
environment for education. The three prongs require that districts have made a
“reasonable effort” in including the student in the general education classroom, have
done a comparison of the educational benefit of education taking place in the general
education classroom with supplemental aids and services versus a special education
classroom, and the impact of inclusion of a student with an IEP on non-disabled peers
(Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of
Clementon School District, 1993 established that inclusion with supplementary aids and
services is a right to students with disabilities receiving education in the public sector,
and if a student cannot be included fully with students without disabilities, they must be
included to the fullest extent appropriate.
In 2005, a five-year settlement agreement was finalized in the case of Gaskin v.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. The foundation of the agreement identified
mutual goals and principles between the parties. Principles of the Oberti v. Board of
Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 1993 case were reaffirmed that a

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

14

student with a disability must receive education to the maximum extent appropriate with
non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment. Secondly, districts needed to
increase the ability to provide a full range of supplementary aids and services for
inclusion in the general education classroom. In the settlement, it was also determined
that students who are gifted and also in need of special education services would have
one guiding document to address gifted programming and necessary supplementary aids
and services within the general education setting (Gaskin v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 2005). Ultimately, the Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005
case put additional responsibilities on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and Department
of Education to ensure that students with disabilities were receiving instruction in the
least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate with the necessary
supplementary supports and services.
Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 (United States Department of Education, 2017)
further interpreted the scope of FAPE requirements within IDEA. Based on the ruling, it
was determined that a school must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable
and ensure that a child make appropriate progress. The United States Supreme Court
emphasized the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging
objectives”. For effective implementation of the Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 ruling,
the IEP team must develop an appropriate IEP that is “reasonably calculated” based on
previous rate of academic growth and special educations services, include annual goals
that aim to improve educational results and functional performance, and identify effective
measures of evaluation and assessment of student growth (United States Department of
Education, 2017). Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 was the contrast of Board of

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

15

Education v. Rowley, 1982 where the United States Supreme Court emphasized that the
IEP had to be developed to provide a student with a disability with meaningful
educational benefit, not substantive as was ruled in Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017.
Education Guidelines and Requirements
Over time, general education and special education guidelines and requirements
have been developed at the federal and state levels. Changes to education laws and
mandates would drive changes to special education practices. Court cases would further
clarify or dictate special education laws and regulations. As changes would occur at the
federal level, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would update or revise the
expectations for both general education and special education students.
In the state of Pennsylvania, special education regulations are found under Title
22 PA Code Chapter 14 for public school districts. The most recent Chapter 14
guidelines were adopted by the State Board of Education on June 28, 2008. The purpose
of Chapter 14 within the code was to meet the statutory requirements under IDEA and
specify how the state of Pennsylvania would meet its obligations for thought-to-be
exceptional and identified exceptional students to provide appropriate, quality education
services (Pennsylvania Chapter 14: Special education services and programs, 2008). The
state regulation provides further clarity or, in some cases, additional requirements beyond
the federal regulations included in IDEA. Also, Chapter 14 is specific in that districts
must develop a written plan on how services will be provided to students with disabilities
and a free appropriate public education is guaranteed.
At the federal level, under IDEA Title 34 Part 300 provides the legal requirements
and mandates for special education services and assistance to states for the education of

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

16

children with disabilities. In 2020, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), the federal standard and guidelines for special education, 45th anniversary was
celebrated. The anniversary of this monumental law has a great deal of legal substance
backing it. IDEA began as the Education for Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94142) in 1975 requiring all federally funded schools to provide equal access to education
for students. In 1990, this law was reauthorized to be the current federal foundation of
special education, IDEA. Additional reauthorizations to IDEA occurred in 1997 and
2004.
Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first disability civil rights law
in the United States and applies to all school districts or entities that receive any form of
federal funding. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. In order to
prevent discrimination under the act, accessibility, equal access, and reasonable
accommodations are requirements. Reasonable accommodations must be provided to
allow a student with a disability to participate in a program or service at the same level as
a nondisabled peer (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). While Section 504 of the 1973
Rehabilitation Act is applied to schools, similarities are apparent under the Americans
with Disabilities Act that applies more to employers, but has been utilized as a basis for
disability discrimination within school settings.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the 2008 amendment is
a civil rights act to protect qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination and
retaliation in a variety of settings to include both the private and public sectors. Section
504 applies to entities receiving federal funds, and ADA is applicable in all other settings.
Like Section 504, ADA is designed to promote equal opportunities for individuals with

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

17

disabilities by removing barriers that could impact major life activities and that
reasonable accommodations be provided (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 was the basis of revisions to IDEIA in
2004. NCLB’s primary purpose was to ensure that students achieved important learning
goals utilizing scientifically research-based approaches to close the achievement gap by
bringing every student up to proficiency in reading and mathematics on state developed
assessments based on state standards by the 2013-2104 school year (Nagro et al., 2022).
The accountability component of NCLB required testing for all students in reading and
math in third through eighth grade and once again in high school and stated that students
with disabilities were to be held responsible for the same academic content and
performance standards as general education peers. NCLB clarified the “what” in special
education in terms of content and curriculum. The expectation was that students with
disabilities would be held accountable for the same content without any reduction in
breadth or depth of the content. The curriculum would not change, but how a student was
taught the content was the goal of the special educator (Zigmond, 2003). As a result,
NCLB also defined the “who” by stating that students with disabilities have access to
highly qualified teacher to implement the research-based instruction (Nagro et al., 2022).
In 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was the next educational mandate
and replaced NCLB with an emphasis on the decision making of states versus the federal
government regarding components of education. The 100% proficiency requirement
under NCLB was waived. ESSA had five attributes that impacted students with
disabilities: 1) required coordination, 2) disciplinary practices, 3) diploma options, 4)
assessments and accountability, and 5) proficiency versus progress (Rodriquez &

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

18

Murawski, 2020). ESSA maintained the goal of fully preparing all students for success
beyond high school by introducing college and career-ready benchmarks for education.
In addition, the accountability for testing at least 95 percent of students was still a
requirement (Young et al., 2018). ESSA continued with many of the previous focuses on
educational access for all, educational accountability, and closing achievement gaps.
Nagro et al. (2022) provides a summary of the interconnection of federal law,
court cases, and policies as it relates to the evolution of access to education. The focus
on education has been documented over time beginning in 1918 with compulsory
education laws being developed in every state to the approval of Every Student Succeeds
Act in 2015. In between, landmark cases and legislation have driven the requirements for
school districts in providing educational services for all students with a continued focus
on inclusive education for students with disabilities. As a result, the requirements within
the public education setting have continued to increase.
Special Education Requirements within the Public Education Setting
Special education requirements within the public education setting are guided by
Chapter 14 in the PA Code. Specific processes and timelines are in place to determine if
a student is a student with a disability and in need of special education services. A
student must qualify for special education services through a process as identified in
IDEA and Chapter 14. Throughout this process, the student must be identified as having
at least one of the disabilities identified under IDEA and being in need of specially
designed instruction. In §300.8 Child with a Disability, IDEA identifies 13 disability
categories: Autism, Deaf-Blindness, Deafness, Emotional Disturbance, Hearing
Impairment, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Other

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

19

Health Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, Speech or Language Impairment,
Traumatic Brain injury, Visual Impairment including Blindness. Once a student is
identified in one of the disability categories and is determined to be in need of special
education services, an IEP is then developed.
The foundation of a student’s special education programming is the IEP. At a
minimum an IEP must be reviewed annually. Developing an IEP requires the
collaboration of required team members to follow a process in the creation and/or review
of the document. An IEP has required sections that must be discussed and are required
based on a student’s age. Progress monitoring of the student’s IEP annual goals is
required in order to ensure that meaningful educational benefit is occurring.
Team members must include the student’s parent/guardian, a regular education
teacher, a special education teacher, a local education agency representative, the student
if they are at transition age (14 and above), any related service providers, and any other
applicable members to include those by parent request or individuals related to transition
services. In the event an individual who is considered a member of the team cannot
participate, the team member must provide input in advance of the meeting, make contact
with the parent/guardian, and be formally excused by the parent and LEA (Pennsylvania
Training and Technical Assistance Network [PaTTAN], 2019). The IEP team is critical
to the development of a successful IEP that integrates inclusive practices to best support a
student in the least restrictive environment.
An IEP should tell the “story” of a student’s progress, strengths, and needs.
Within an IEP are eight required components. First, the present education levels of
progress and needs within academic achievement and functional performance are

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

20

included. Secondly, measurable annual goals must be developed with a description of
how the child’s progress towards meeting the goals will be measured. The fourth
component identifies the special education related services, supplementary aids and
services, and supports for school personnel that will be provided to the child. The
following section identifies a statement to the extent, if any, the special education student
will not participate with nondisabled peers on the general education classroom. A sixth
required component is a statement on the participation with or without accommodations
on state and district-wide assessments. Throughout the document, and a required
component, is the beginning and duration of services. The eighth required component
begins when the child is identified to be of transition age to include components of
transitioning programming (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). The IEP is meant to be the
plan, but not the curriculum for a student with a disability. Therefore, it is important that
the plan be developed to share the story of student’s progress, strengths, and needs while
also determining the necessary supports and services for a student to access the general
education curriculum and environment to the fullest extent possible.
In the state of Pennsylvania, progress monitoring of IEP measurable annual goals
is required quarterly. Progress monitoring is the ongoing process of collecting and
analyzing data to determine student progress toward attainment of educational goals
(Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network [PaTTAN], 2018a). The data
collected as part of progress monitoring determines the appropriateness of a student’s IEP
and if the developed plan needs modifications to support further attainment of goals.
Progress monitoring needs to occur for academic goals within an IEP and behavioral
goals that may be included within a positive behavior support plan. Under the IDEA

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

21

revisions in 2004, parents must be informed of their child’s progress towards annual
goals. The specifics related to progress monitoring such as frequency of data collection
and when progress will be communicated are included within the student’s IEP. Progress
monitoring is essential to documenting the measurable growth of a student with a
disability and has been an increased requirement for educators over the last several
decades. Meaningful progress monitoring is the key to determining the effectiveness of
inclusive practices and the reasonable calculation of an IEP for student growth.
Supplementary aids and services are addressed through the IEP and can include
an array of identified supports that are unique to a student with a disability. The
consideration of a full range of aids and services must be considered beyond the school
day to address inclusion in school-sponsored events. Students may receive direct
supports such as aide support, assistive technology, accommodations, and modifications.
Additional supports may be more indirect and include consultation, training, and/or
support for staff who are working with a student. Under IDEA, supplementary aids and
services should be available to all students who need them, designed to provide
meaningful educational benefit, and provided in a manner that avoids stigmatizing
students. Therefore, the development of four categories of supplementary aids and
services, cited in the PaTTAN document, developed by Etcsheidt and Bartlett in 1999,
include for consideration: collaborative, instruction, physical, and social-behavioral aids
and services (PaTTAN, 2018b).
The fact that many court cases have ruled that instruction must be provided in the
least restrictive environment and the requirements for public educations settings must
follow the laws has led school systems to developing special education programming for

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

22

students based on a continuum of services. Students IEPs’ will begin with discussion on
what is the least restrictive environment for the student. The answer to the question of
where special education students should be educated and what is the least restrictive
environment is within an IEP. As stated in IDEA and the Basic Education Circular in the
state of Pennsylvania: Placement Options for Special Education, LEA’s are required to
ensure that the placement be determined by the child’s IEP team, that a continuum of
placement alternatives be discussed, and that a child with a disability be provided with
instruction in a setting different from that of non-disabled peers on when the nature or
severity of the child’s disability that even with the use of supplementary aids and services
education cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Pennsylvania Department of Education,
2017). A continuum of educational environments must be developed or implemented
based on the needs of a student.
Delivery of Special Education Services
According to Zigmond (2003), the question of where students with disabilities
should be educated was debated in the mid-1980’s as research was identifying the
failures of the “pull-out special education” model. The various instructional settings
offer different opportunities based on the educational environment and needs of the
students.
Within the delivery continuum of least to most restrictive, a variety of educational
programs can be implemented to best meet the needs of a student. A beginning
consideration is that the least restrictive environment is instruction being provided in the
regular education setting with supplementary supports and services. The general
education classroom affords students with disabilities the opportunity to learn beside and

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

23

engage with students who do not have disabilities. Typically, the curriculum and
materials are the same as non-disabled students in the classroom. In the event a student
requires an accommodation or modification, the range of supplementary aids and services
is considered. In Pennsylvania, the term “itinerant” is used to describe the lowest level of
special education support.
A portion of a student’s day can have instruction occur in the regular education
setting with supplementary supports and services while the other portion of the day the
student receives instruction in the special education classroom. Within the special
education classroom, smaller teacher-student ratio exists while also receiving instruction
through specially designed instruction and materials. Special education students can
receive more intensive instruction on basic academic skills, explicit instruction in
controlling behaviors or interacting with peers, or receive instruction on an area that
students in the general education classroom do not need to receive instruction on at that
time within the special education classroom (Zigmond, 2003). The special education
teacher has training and background in working with disabled students and the best
practices to teach students in order to have appropriate academic gains. Within the
continuum of special education services provided within the state of Pennsylvania,
students who receive special education supports and services outside of the regular
education classroom for more than 20% but less than 80% of the school day are receiving
a supplemental level of support.
At times, the needs of a student along with the special education process may lead
to a decision that instruction will occur in a specialized setting with full-time special
education supports and services and not have instruction occur within a regular education

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

24

setting. The most restrictive environment occurs through instruction in-the-home as the
necessary educational setting.
Inclusive Education
In an interview, Jamie Pearson, Ph.D., stated that inclusive education means that
students with and without disabilities learn alongside one another, in the same classroom
setting, with lessons that are accessible for all (Bowen, 2020). Educational professionals
and advocacy groups have debated to what degree an inclusive education should be
provided to students with disabilities. Court cases such as Gaskin have also argued to
what extent an inclusive education should be provided. Regardless of the various
debates, an inclusive education occurs when students with a disability are educated in a
general education classroom with the required supports and services under the law.
Two perspectives on inclusive education, inclusionist versus full inclusionist,
were presented by Fuchs and Fuchs (1998). Inclusionists focused on children getting
appropriate academic instruction to master skills and knowledge necessary for future
successes in and out of school within a continuum of special education placements. The
full inclusionists believed that the appropriate place for all children was the regular
classroom and believed that schools were the best place to provide opportunities for
friendships and changing the stereotypic thinking around individuals with disabilities.
The inclusionist viewpoint was connected with students with primarily learning
disabilities, behavior disorders, and mild mental retardation; whereas, the full inclusionist
represented the student with severe mental retardation (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998).
The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) is a national
organization focused on the education and support of individuals with learning

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

25

disabilities. LDA believes that the decisions regarding educational placement of students
must be based on the needs of each individual and does not support “full inclusion” or
any policy that requires the same placement, instruction, or treatment for all students with
disabilities. Though many students with learning disabilities benefit from being served in
a regular education classroom, for some students the appropriate placement is not the
general education classroom. Some students may need alternative instructional
environments and approaches that cannot be provided within the context of a regular
classroom placement. The pure concept of placement of all students with disabilities in
the general education classroom is viewed by the LDA as much of a violation of IDEA as
the placement of all children in separate classrooms on the basis of a student’s disability
(Learning Disabilities Association of America, n.d.).
Researchers in the field of special education have also provided opinions on the
debate over full-inclusion. Zigmond cited her own research from 1996 with Baker
questioning the “appropriateness” of full inclusion as the sole service delivery model for
students with learning disabilities in public schools. “We cannot support the elimination
of a continuum of services for students with [learning disabilities]. Inclusion is good, full
inclusion may be too much of a good thing”, (Zigmond & Baker, 1996 as cited in
Zigmond et al. 2009). Clearly, advocacy groups, parents, and experts in the field will
continue to debate how much “inclusion” is appropriate for students with a disability.
Though inclusive education is mandated under the law, it is clear that there is “no
one size fits all” model of inclusion. The time a student with a disability spends in the
general/regular education classroom is unique to each learner and should be guided by
the IEP process. Given the historical overview of inclusive education, the philosophical

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

26

debate over inclusive education and to what degree has been ongoing and will continue to
be a focus area of educators and advocacy groups.
Inclusionary Practices in the Classroom
Inclusive education is more than a student’s IEP. Though a student’s IEP is the
plan of how a student will access education in the least restrictive environment through
special education supports and services, an inclusive classroom requires an inclusive
classroom and curriculum. A variety of inclusionary practices can be implemented in a
classroom environment. Common inclusionary practices include, but are not limited to,
co-teaching or scheduled supports in the general education classroom, differentiation of
instruction, small group instruction, and the implementation of modifications and
accommodations. An inclusive educational setting also requires intentionality with a
specific focus on the classroom and curriculum while also not implementing one practice
at a time.
A comprehensive inclusive education and classroom, according to Vandercook et
al. (2021), is based on the following acknowledgements: each child is a general education
student, the general education curriculum and routines and the IEP comprise a student’s
educational program, and the IEP for a student receiving special education services is not
the curriculum. As a result of a comprehensive inclusive approach, one of the first
classroom practices to really support the implementation of an inclusive setting is teacher
collaboration, mindset, and a planning process that leads to a common vision that creates
a sense of community for all students.
The beginning of co-teaching marked the reinvention of the classroom setting
where special educators began to assume a new role of support and collaboration within

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

27

the general education classroom. The expertise of the special education and general
education teachers are collaboratively shared and applied to create a successful, inclusive
environment. Fuchs & Fuchs (1998) identified co-teaching as a popular form of
collaboration “whereby the special educator plays a primary, secondary, or co-equal role
in helping adapt the mainstream experience for children with disabilities”. Different
evidence-based models for implementing co-teaching successfully have been identified:
one-teach, one assist; station teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; and team
teaching (Young et al., 2018). Co-teaching requires common planning time,
intentionality, and a strong partnership to be successful. When students are successful
within a co-taught classroom, the goal of inclusive education through special education
supports and services is achieved.
Magiera and Zigmond (2005) studied the instructional experience for students
with disabilities in a co-taught and solo-taught classroom. In this study, limited
instructional benefits were found for students with disabilities in a co-taught classroom.
Two significant differences did emerge during the study. First, students received more
individual instructional interactions under co-teaching interactions. Second, when special
education teachers were in the classroom, interactions occurred less frequently between
the general educator and special education student. The results of the study had
implications for co-teachers as well as students. It was indicated that researchers found
insignificant differences in practices under co-taught conditions due to lack of teacher
preparation and training to engage in a co-taught teaching arrangement and lack of
common planning time to support co-teaching from behind the scenes (Magiera &
Zigmond, 2005).

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

28

Differentiation is an identified evidenced-based instructional strategy utilized for
special education students to participate in the general education setting. Carol Ann
Tomlinson is known as the guru of differentiation. She defines differentiation as “an
instructional approach to help teachers teach with individuals as well as content in mind.
Differentiation really means trying to make sure that teaching and learning work for the
full range of students” (Bell, 2011). Tomlinson identifies that some of what is talked
about in differentiation comes from the work of special education and some from gifted
education. According to Tomlinson, differentiation is multi-faceted, but is driven by
student readiness, student interest, and student learning profile (Bell, 2011).
Accommodations and modifications are also identified through the development
of the IEP and play a significant part in the effectiveness of an inclusive environment.
An accommodation changes “how” a student learns a material and a modification
changes the “what” a student is learning. When considering classroom instruction, an
accommodation might include listening to an audio version of the book that all students
are reading. A modification would change what is being read to change the expectation
of the learning and thus the expectation of what is being learned in comparison to peers
within the classroom (The Understood Team, n.d.). Providing accommodations and
modifications to students in the general education classroom has served as the basis of
inclusive practices for students when considering the continuum of special education
placement options. Classroom accommodations and modifications can go beyond
academic supports and also be environmental supports. It is important through the IEP
process to clearly review the types of supports based on the needs of the student to
determine if a support must be academic or behavioral.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

29

Small group instruction can occur in a variety of ways to support the special
education student. Co-teachers have identified that cooperative learning and the use of
small groups as two instructional techniques that have been most effective (Austin,
2001). The use of small group instruction can occur in a co-taught classroom, in a
smaller setting as a supplement to the general education instruction, or in a special
education classroom in a resource or “pull-out” setting as determined by the IEP team
and based on student need.
Inclusive practices in the classroom are also provided through a continuum and
based on the needs of a student. Co-teaching, differentiation, accommodations, and
modifications are a few of the inclusionary practices that can be implemented. Highquality and evidence-based instructional practices must be implemented consistently to
ensure that student’s needs are being supported in the inclusive setting. It is also clear
that teachers providing instruction in an inclusive setting need the appropriate training
and supports to implement evidence-based and best instructional practices. Though the
inclusive supports, academically and behaviorally, are critical for a student with a
disability’s success, non-disabled peers also benefit.
Benefits and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education
The benefits and effectiveness of inclusive education can be unique to each
student with an IEP and to the general education student. Many studies cite academic
and social benefits. The inclusive environment also provides an opportunity for exposure
to individual differences and fosters an environment of peer acceptance. Research shows
that giving all students an opportunity to interact and learn side-by-side helps build
empathy among neurotypical learners who are learning with peers who are different from

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

30

them. Inclusive classrooms offer students with disabilities more equitable access to
education and create more success academically and socially (Bowen, 2020). An
inclusive environment with co-teaching provided students with a reduced student-teacher
ratio with teachers providing the perspective that the collaborative teaching strategies
were effective in educating all students (Austin, 2001).
A recent study conducted in the state of Indiana continued to build on a study
conducted by the Intermediate Unit in 2020 that examined outcomes for students in
grades 3-8. Results from the study showed that students in more inclusive settings,
regardless of disability category, achieved higher on state assessments than students in
more restrictive settings. On average, a high school student in 10th grade who spent 80%
or more time in the general education classroom scored 24.3 points higher on the state
English assessment and 18.4 points higher on math than peers without a similar inclusion
experience (Arundel, 2022). The findings provided further validation of what federal
special education law requires about placement in the least restrictive environment for
students with disabilities.
The benefits of an inclusive educational settings will continue to be reviewed.
Students without disabilities can benefit from inclusive practices by receiving instruction
in a smaller setting through the reduction of student numbers to teacher ratio while also
having exposure to individual student differences. However, studies that have focused on
the benefits are also clear to identify the barriers in the research ranging from the
different needs of students, the number of special education students in an inclusive
setting, experience and professional development of the classroom teacher, and the
mindset of the educator providing the instruction in the general education setting. As a

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

31

result, it is difficult to identify strongly with verifiable data the benefits of inclusion.
However, it is clear under the law that students with disabilities must be included in the
general education classroom.
Teachers’ Beliefs on Inclusionary Practices
Meaningful education of students with and without disabilities relies on a
partnership between general educators and special educators. However, researchers over
time have identified that general education teachers have a different set of beliefs related
to special education than special educators. General educators have difficulty with the
practicality of providing individualized and intense instruction to students with 25-35
students in a class. However, special educators believe that instruction must be
individualized to be effective (Zigmond, 2003). Ultimately, the differences in beliefs
leads to the reliance of the expertise that each educator brings to the educational
environment for all students. The general educator is traditionally identified as the
content expert while the special educator provides the knowledge on how to best provide
instruction to a student with a disability. It is essential to have this type of well-rounded
knowledge at the table when developing an inclusive environment for a student with a
disability, but to also consider the environment for all students.
For the purposes of examining teacher’s beliefs on inclusionary practices, the
overarching inclusionary practice that receives perspective feedback from educators is
co-teaching. The National Study on Inclusion in 1995 identified that co-teaching had
become the most popular staffing model for implementing inclusion (National Center on
Educational Restructuring and Inclusion [NCERI], 1995). A study conducted by Austin
(2001) focused on teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching, but also gathered information on

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

32

perceptions connected to co-teaching and inclusive education. General education and
special education teachers completed surveys and were interviewed.
Data from semistructured interviews revealed that most co-teachers found the
experience to be positive. A majority of co-teachers identified cooperative
learning and the use of small groups as the two instructional techniques the found
most effective…..Most co-teachers interviewed expressed the belief that the
collaborate teaching strategies they were using were effective in educating all
students, citing a reduced student-teacher ratio as the principal
benefit…..Similarly, the teachers stated that they believed inclusive education was
socially beneficial for students with and without disabilities because it promoted a
tolerance for differences and a general sense of acceptance and it provided general
education peer models for students with disabilities. However, there were several
exceptions to this perception. The preeminent reservation was that the inclusion
of some students might be expressly for socialization, despite the evident disparity
in academic achievement of those students compared with their general education
peers (pp. 250-251).
Jordan et al. (2009) reviewed four areas related to inclusive education through an
analysis of previous studies. The areas included effective inclusion for all students,
teachers who believe students with special needs are their responsibility tend to be more
effective overall with all their students, teacher’s beliefs about the disability and their
responsibilities for inclusion may be part of a broader set of assumptions, attitudes and
beliefs about ability and the nature of knowledge and knowing how learning proceeds,
and teacher preparation for inclusive settings. Based on the review of the article, it is

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

33

clear that teachers’ beliefs about who has primary responsibility for students with special
education needs can be the difference between effective and ineffective inclusion. A
relationship exists between beliefs and practices. Unfortunately, the concept of inclusive
education is not always addressed in preservice programs or professional development.
As a result, a set of teacher’s beliefs is developed based on professional experiences.
Teacher’s perspectives on inclusive education are an area that continue to need
further study and professional development. The partnership between a general educator
(the content expert) and the special educator (disability and supports expert) can
determine the effectiveness of an inclusive environment for students. An educator’s
mindset is also a key factor in how inclusive education is approached and implemented
across the school setting. As a result, education systems need to be mindful of
professional development to implement best inclusive practices in special education and
to provide consistency in how a service model is delivered.
District Special Education Profile
The identified district is located outside of Pittsburgh in the South Hills Area.
Based on the 2021-2022 Special Education Penn Data Report, the district enrollment was
3,929 students. Students identified as having a disability and in need of special education
students totaled 522. The Special education report is broken into category percentages
for the identified 13 disability categories within IDEA. The largest disability category
reported within the district is specific learning disability (SLD) at 29.7% of the identified
students in need of special education. The smallest disability category intellectual
disability (mental retardation) at 3.3% of the 522 of the identified students (Pennsylvania
State Data Center, 2022).

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

34

Every three years, in alignment with a district’s strategic plan, a school district is
required under the Pennsylvania Public School Code to submit for approval to the Bureau
of Special Education a District Special Education Plan. A district’s special education
plan is an action plan that describes the local Board of Director’s commitment and
assurances that a quality education will be provided to each student eligible for special
education supports and services (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.). The plan
contains many required sections; however, for the purposes of this study, it is important
to focus on the section related to least restrictive environment that outlines the district’s
continuum of program offerings and supplementary aids and services.
According to the District Special Education Plan, the district “remains committed
to providing inclusionary learning experiences and educating students in the least
restrictive environment setting. The district provides various services and supports to
ensure that students with disabilities are educated alongside students without disabilities
to the greatest extent possible” (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). The district’s
special education data report supports the district’s commitment to providing instruction
in the least restrictive environment for students with 68.2% of special education students
receiving instruction in the regular classroom for 80% or more of the school day. This
report also revealed that the percentage of students being educated in the regular class
setting less than 40% of the day was not reportable due to small group size (Pennsylvania
State Data Center, 2022).
The district also identifies that numerous universal practices are implemented to
support the academic and social/emotional needs of all students. A continuum of levels
of support, based on an inclusionary model, for participation in the general education

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

35

classroom are offered. The continuum within the regular educations setting is identified
as student participation in one or more of the following for core content classes: general
education class with special education personnel consultation and general education
classroom with scheduled supports (paraprofessional or co-teaching). Special education
resource classes are offered in core content areas for students in need of more direct
instruction or a smaller classroom setting. If a student’s needs also warrant additional
supports, such as a paraprofessional, a continuum is also available within the smaller
classroom setting (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). All decisions related to the
least restrictive environment are based on the individual needs of the student and as part
of the IEP process.
Another component within the least restrictive environment is the district’s efforts
in providing a variety of academic programming and training efforts to ensure
meaningful participation of student with disabilities in the general education curriculum.
The district does not follow a cyclical curriculum review process; therefore, as needs
arrive in programming, instructional staff members are directly involved in the review,
development, and implementation of new instructional programs. As a result, an array of
options for student participation in the general education curriculum exists. The district’s
plan states, “A variety of evidence-based and research-based instructional approaches and
programs in core academic areas are utilized to support participation in the general
education curriculum” (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). Supplemental aids and
supports for participation in the general education setting are also identified to include a
continuum of related services, personal care assistants, nursing, assistive technology, and
psychological services. The district partners with the local intermediate unit and

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

36

PaTTAN for training while also utilizing additional outside agencies for ongoing
consultation and support for students and staff (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022).
The district meets the requirement under Chapter 14 by having a written plan of
how special education supports and services will be provided within the district. Clear
evidence of special education being provided in an inclusive setting and in the least
restrictive environment is documented. Based on the plan, and as stated by researchers, a
continuum of special education services does exist even with a high percentage of
students being educated in the general education classroom.
Summary
Over almost the last seven decades, special education services and programming
have continued to evolve to have a focus on inclusivity and providing education in the
least restrictive environment. The evolution of special education can be directly linked to
the laws that have been enacted for the protection of disabled individuals. According to
Zigmond et al. (2009), “the preferred delivery model of special education is full inclusion
with co-teaching, the content for special education students is standards-based instruction
utilizing the grade level general education curriculum, and specially designed instruction
for students consists of small differentiations on assignments to keep everybody working
on the same page and keeping special education students accountable for learning the
same material” (p.196). Zigmond’s description of the preferred special education setting
would successfully meet the mandated expectations under IDEA and provide the highest
level of inclusive education. When working in public education or an educational setting
receiving federal funding, it is essential to understand special education process to

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
support inclusive education in order to avoid claims of disability discrimination and to
provide access to an equitable education for all students.

37

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

38

Chapter III
Methodology
The literature review outlines the history of special education, legal mandates,
landmark legal cases, and best inclusionary practices. The researcher has identified that
over the history of special education, philosophical differences have and continue to exist
related to inclusionary practices and outcomes for students. In action research, the goal is
to identify a problem in the school setting with purposely chosen participants in order to
have results that inform practice (Hendricks, 2017). Within this action research study, a
research process will utilize various data collection methods through questionnaires,
semi-structured interviews, and review of documents on the implementation of
inconsistent inclusionary practices. The participants selected will be special educators
and general educators who teach various content areas and have varied years of teaching
experience. Information collected from the participants through the identified data
collection tools will inform practices connected to the implementation of inclusionary
special education practices.
This chapter will identify the purpose of the study, the setting and participants, the
action research plan to include the design, methods, and data collection, and finally the
validity of the capstone project. Each section will focus on the identified topic of
“Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education
Practices in Grades 7-9”. By examining this topic more deeply, insight will be gained
on teacher perspectives, comfort and effectiveness, and needs related to the
implementation of inclusionary special education practices.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

39

The methodology of the project will utilize information gathered through the
literature review and will include data collected through multiple data points including
questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and an analysis of individualized education
plans (IEPs). With the data collected and analyzed, recommendations and conclusions
will be made related to the implementation of special education inclusionary practices in
grades 7-9 across grade levels and content areas; in the event that consistent practices are
identified by participants, information will be reviewed to further provide information to
support the consistent implementation of special education inclusionary practices. Given
that it is a requirement for students receiving special education supports and services to
receive instruction in the least restrictive environment, it is necessary to study the
inclusionary practices that support instruction for students. Informal feedback throughout
the researcher’s employment has identified that the inclusionary practices in grades 7-9
are inconsistently implemented across grade levels and within classrooms creating varied
experiences for several stakeholder groups, especially students with IEPs.
Purpose
As presented in the literature review, philosophical differences exist related to the
implementation of inclusionary practices and overall expectations for a student receiving
special education services. The purpose of this doctoral capstone project is to collect data
and analyze the data to provide recommendations that will increase programmatic
fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide students with
learning experiences that are rooted in best inclusionary practices. When inclusionary
practices are implemented inconsistently, the educational experiences for special
education students and teachers (general education and special education) are varied.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

40

Varied educational experiences can lead to requests for different teachers, potential legal
concerns related to the implementation of IEPs, and concerns for program effectiveness.
In addition, transition between grade levels and teachers could be present unintentional
difficulties for students. Therefore, this study is warranted to provide recommendations
that lead to more consistent and fluid experiences for students and teachers across
classrooms, grade levels, and content areas.
The goal is to use data collected to guide conclusions and recommendations that
will support more consistent and stronger inclusionary practices across classrooms, grade
levels, and content areas. Teachers will receive further support as well to become
stronger practitioners in this area. Data may also reveal that certain practices are more
relevant and essential at various grade levels and within particular content areas. It is
also important for the district to collect baseline data in this area to drive future
professional development programming for professional staff. Due to the COVID-19
Pandemic, professional development was provided in response to different needs for the
successful implementation of in-person and remote instruction. With the data collected,
the desired outcomes will be for the researcher to support colleagues in implementing
more consistent practices that will increase the fidelity of special education programs
implemented within the district.
Research questions were identified to guide the research design and data
collection procedures.
1. What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

41

2. What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?
3. What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized
education plans?
4. What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?
Two primary parties exist in the school environment when implementing
inclusionary practices. The special education and general education teacher(s) are
responsible for the implementation of the inclusionary practices and specially designed
instruction as outlined within each student’s IEP. The first two questions, “What are the
perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?”
and “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?” were developed to collect information specific to the individual
educator to gain a sampling of insights on perceptions. In addition, the collection of
information was also utilized to form any additional questions as part of the semistructured interviews. Data sources for the first two questions included a questionnaire
and a semi-structured interview protocol.
The third question “What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9
within individualized education plans?” provided the researcher with information on
inclusionary practices that are included within a student’s IEP. A researcher developed
checklist was utilized to collect this qualitative data. Information collected on this
question will incorporate similarities and emerging trends within IEPs in grades 7-9.
Based on the similarities and emerging trends, targeted professional development could
be designed within the proposed framework that will be developed. Given that the IEP

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

42

document review will intentionally occur throughout the identified data collection, points
of clarification or questions related to the analysis can be included in the semi-structured
interview protocol.
The fourth research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices
being implemented in grades 7-9?” gathered further information as to why inclusionary
practices are implemented differently. Information collected through the questionnaires,
semi-structured interviews, and IEP analysis will yield answers to this question. With
utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol, additional information can be collected
based on teachers’ content areas and grade levels. The IEP analysis will provide
information specifically connected to students at each grade level receiving special
education services at each grade level. Students at specific grade levels may receive
different inclusionary practices or how the inclusionary practice is written into an IEP
could be the basis for why inclusionary practices are implemented differently. The fourth
research question is rooted in action research by collecting a variety of data points
involving essential components of inclusionary practice implementation.
Setting and Participants
The Upper St. Clair School District is a public school located in the south hills
area outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. District enrollment is approximately 3,900
students with 905 students in grades 7-9. In grades 7-9, approximately 100 students are
identified as receiving special education supports and services and have IEPs. Districtwide the average identification rate for special education is 13.3%. For many students in
this district, the least restrictive environment is the general education classroom. The
Upper St. Clair School District has a strong history of educating students receiving

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

43

special education services in the general education classroom for the majority of the
school day. On the 2021-2022 State Special Education Data Report, 68.2% of district
special education students were educated inside the regular education classroom for 80%
or more of the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022).
Participants in the study included all special education teachers and a random
selection of general education teachers teaching students in grades 7-9. Given the grades
identified, two buildings out of the six within the district served as interview sites. Fort
Couch Middle School houses grades 7 and 8, and Upper St. Clair High School houses
grade 9. The study does not include any active engagement with students. However, a
random selection of 15 student IEPs across each of the three grade levels being studied
will be selected for an analysis through a checklist developed by the researcher. IEPs
selected were of students with various needs; however, each of the selected students
needed to be included in the general education setting for a minimum 70% of the school
day. Throughout the district, the majority of special education students receive
instruction in the general education setting for 80% or more of the day.
Throughout the study, all actively engaged participants received information
related to voluntary participation, consent, and a process to withdraw from the study.
Informed consent was indicated by agreeing to participate in the questionnaire on the first
Google Form slide. If a participant indicated that they did not wish to participate, the
questionnaire was not provided. When a participant was notified for the semi-structured
interview, the interview disclosure was provided in advance (Appendix A). In order to
schedule an interview, a participant was provided with a calendly.org link for “Action
Research” participation. If an individual did not wish to participate, they would not

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

44

select a time to be interviewed. At the onset of an interview, the disclosure was provided
to be signed, and then a statement related to consent and withdrawing from the study was
read.
Intervention and Research Plan
Given the literature review, it is clear that special education inclusionary practices
have been a focal point of studies, legal cases, and implementation of best practices
within the field of special education. The research plan collected various forms of data in
order to provide both general and special educators with recommendations to enhance the
overall experience for students and teachers related to the implementation of inclusionary
practices. The implementation of consistent inclusionary practices will increase
programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide
a framework to guide professional development for staff.
The research plan began officially in January 2023 by collecting qualitative data
through several sources. Data was collected from participants who are currently or who
have implemented special education inclusionary practices. Inquiry data was collected
on the perceptions and experiences of the educational professionals. Given the first-hand
experiences of participants, the data provided the researcher with meaningful personal
insights and experiential information. Additional qualitative information was also
collected by analyzing IEP documents utilizing a researcher designed checklist.
First in the research process, a questionnaire was issued to special educators in
grades 7-9 via Google Forms to collect information on the first research question, “What
are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary
practices?” All eight special education teachers in grades 7-9 received an email with

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

45

information related to the questionnaire. It was made clear throughout the questionnaire
communication and consent that the information collected would be anonymous. A
100% participation rate of special educators was achieved for the questionnaire a
The semi-structured interview protocol also collected information on the first
question. Based on the responses from the questionnaires and throughout the interview,
additional follow up questions were asked. The protocol also provided participants the
opportunity to further expand on their perceptions and provide recommendations for
improvement. Given the small sample of available special education teachers in grades
7-9, all eight special education teachers were selected to participate in the semi-structured
interview. Teachers were contacted via email in a confidential manner that other
participants would not see who was selected. When emailed, the disclosure and consent
was attached to the email. A link through calendly.org was provided for ease of
scheduling and identifying a location within their building for the interview to occur.
Teachers were reminded that participation was voluntary, and if they wished to not
participate, then a time to be interviewed should not be selected. No reminder emails for
participation were necessary to be sent for scheduling. A 100% participation rate of
special educators was achieved for the semi-structured interview.
In order for data to be collected on the second research question, “What are the
perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? a
random selection process was conducted for the general education teachers to receive the
general education questionnaire. The random selection process was completed by having
a list of all 7th thru 9th grade core content area teachers identified in a list sorted by grade
level. Each teacher received a number. A website, random.org, was utilized to pick the

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

46

random numbers for teacher selection. Six teachers from each grade level were selected
totaling 18 teachers. Teachers identified as “special areas/elective” teachers were also
identified and placed in one list. Three teachers from this list were selected. Overall, 21
general education teachers were selected for the questionnaire. Once the selection
process was completed, the general education teachers received an email with
information related to the questionnaire. A reminder email was sent to general education
teachers a week after the initial prompt to complete the questionnaire. It was also made
clear throughout the questionnaire communication and consent that the information
collected would be anonymous. One general educator selected to not participate in the
study and three did not respond. Therefore, the response rate by general educators was
81% with 77% of general educators completing the questionnaire.
The semi-structured interview protocol continued the data collection process on
perceptions and observable inclusionary practices. Two teachers at each grade level in
content area courses were randomly selected to participate in the interview totaling six
interviews to be conducted with general educators. The random selection process was
completed by having a list of all 7th thru 9th grade core content area teachers identified in
a list sorted by grade level. Each teacher received a number. A website, random.org,
was utilized to pick the random numbers for teacher selection. Two teachers from each
grade level were selected totaling six teachers in core content areas. Teachers were
contacted via email in a confidential manner that other participants would not see who
was selected. When emailed, the disclosure and consent was attached to the email. A
link through calendly.org was provided for ease of scheduling and identifying a location
for the interview in their building. Teachers were reminded that participation was

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

47

voluntary, and if they wished to not participate, then a time to be interviewed should not
be selected. One reminder email for participation was sent notifying randomly selected
individuals that this would be the last email sent for participation. A 67 % participation
rate of general educators was achieved for the semi-structured interview. Based on the
responses from the questionnaires and throughout the interview, additional follow up
questions were asked. The protocol also provided participants the opportunity to further
expand on their perceptions and provide recommendations for improvement.
The background of participants in the semi-structured interviews is included in
Table 1. Participant information will provide further insight on the perspectives and
experiences of general and special educators. A range of 3 years to 28 years of
experience was identified. The information on participants will serve as a component of
the data analysis to support final conclusions and recommendations. Given the nature of
the random selection process and voluntary participation, the participation rate of the
general educators could also serve as a limitation to this study. At the conclusion of the
data collection window, four general educators were participants in the semi-structured
interviews.
Table 1
Participants in the Semi-Structured Interviews
Participant
Teacher 1
Teacher 2

Primary Job
Duty
Special Educator
Special Educator

Teacher 3

Special Educator

Teacher 4

Special Educator

Specific
Content/Responsibility
7th and 8th math resource
ELA and math resource
7th ELA inclusion
8th ELA inclusion
8th math inclusion (Algebra)
7th math inclusion (PreAlgebra)
7th and 8th ELA resource

Total years of
Experience
18
11
22

15

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

Teacher 5

Special Educator

Teacher 6

Special Educator

Teacher 7

Special Educator

Teacher 8

Special Educator

Techer 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 12
Teacher 13
Teacher 14

Regular Educator
Regular Educator
Regular Educator
Regular Educator
Regular Educator
Regular Educator

8th ELA inclusion
7th ELA inclusion
8th math resource
7th math inclusion
9th and 11th ALS*
9th math resource
9th conceptual Bio inclusion
9th and 11th ALS
9th ALS
9th English resource
9th English inclusion
7th grade social studies
7th grade English
8th grade Algebra
9th grade Biology
9th grade English
9th grade social studies

48

12

28

15
15

19
3
23
15
No response
No response

Once the questionnaires were issued to the special and general educators, the
focus began to shift on collecting data for the research question, “What are the identified
inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” Data was
collected through a researcher developed checklist evaluating the inclusionary practices
included within a student’s IEP. Student IEPs were randomly selected utilizing the IEP
management system, IEP writer. A spreadsheet was created to include all students in
grades 7-9 receiving special education services. When the spreadsheet was created, only
a student identification number was included along with a grade level. The spreadsheet
was sorted by grade level. In order to have an IEP reviewed, the student needed to be
included in the general education setting for 70% or more of the school day. In addition,
students receiving services through either life skills or emotional support were not
included in order keep the IEP analysis specific to learning support or speech and
language support students. Based on the researcher’s professional background, students

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

49

receiving special education through life skills or emotional support have a vast and varied
amount of specially designed instruction that could possibly go beyond the scope of the
study.
Within each grade level, 15 students were selected totaling 45 IEP documents for
review. It is important to note that it may not be possible for the student’s name to
remain completely anonymous given the nature of an IEP document; however, the
student identifying information is not relevant to the outcomes of the study. The primary
section of the IEP to review will be Section VI: Program Modifications and Specially
Designed Instruction while keeping in mind type and level of special education support.
The final research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices being
implemented in grades 7-9?” also utilized multiple modes of data collection. This
question was examined by responses collected on the questionnaires and through the
semi-structured interview protocol. In addition, the IEP checklist analysis yielded a great
deal of information on this question.
Fiscal implications related to the study are minimal. In order to conduct the
study, no costs are being incurred by the district. Based on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations a possibility does exist that additional fiscal responsibilities may be
connected to professional development for staff related to the research topic. Given the
various special education mandates, the fiscal responsibilities related to this study are
already dictated by law and essential for the district to be in compliance for the
implementation of special education supports and services.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

50

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
A qualitative research method was implemented utilizing multiple forms of data
collection to answer the research questions. The data collection measures utilized
included questionnaires, semi-structured interview guides, and a researcher developed
checklist to review student IEPs. Risks to participants was minimal and only included a
certain population of staff who have direct experience related to the research topic.
Educators completing the questionnaires remained anonymous and due to the nature of
the semi-structured interview, participants could not remain anonymous, but were
informed at minimum three times that participation was voluntary. Students were not
involved in the study.
Questionnaires were completed through a Google Form to answer questions
related to special education inclusionary practices. Consent was gathered prior to
beginning the survey. The information collected through the questionnaire was
electronically transferred to a spreadsheet for analysis. Data collected through the
questionnaires will be analyzed for emerging trends in order to provide answers related to
the correlated research questions.
Semi-structured interviews were completed in either of the two identified
buildings with consenting participants. The interview guides were completed during the
interview with the researcher taking scripted responses for each question. The interview
guides were kept on a passcode protected USB. The semi-structured interview gathered
open-ended data on the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the inclusionary practices form
the educators selected to participate in the action research study. Confidentiality of the
interviews was maintained by each interview being assigned a number with no mention

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

51

of teacher name during the interview. The only identifiable information will be who is a
general educator and special educator for the purposes of the study. Data collected
through the semi-structured interviews will be analyzed for emerging trends in order to
provide answers related to the correlated research questions.
The IEP checklist analysis was completed by the researcher. Based on the criteria
to review IEPs of students included 70% or more of the school day and also to focus on
students receiving learning support and speech and language support, 45 IEPs were
selected, 15 at each grade level. The analysis of the IEPs took longer than the researcher
had anticipated given the numerous varied accommodations within the specially designed
instruction. In addition, some of the content being analyzed in each IEP was not located
in a consistent area making it difficult for the researcher to just focus on certain areas
within the IEP. During this process, the researcher’s knowledge of IEPs was beneficial,
but the inconsistent writing added time to each IEP review. The researcher would spend
a range of time from between 5 to 15 minutes completing the IEP checklists. Information
collected will be further analyzed in Chapter IV.
The data collection period took place over a two-month window between January
2023 and March 2023 (Table 2). The developed data collection timeline was adhered to
throughout the study. Questionnaires were provided first to special educators. The
random selection process for general educators was completed in order to next provide
the general education questionnaire to selected participants. While participants were
completing the questionnaire, the semi-structured interviews began to be scheduled. The
interviews were conducted first with special educators. While this process was taking
place, the general educators to participate in the semi-structured interview were selected.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

52

The interviews with general educators were scheduled next. Throughout the interview
process, the analysis of student IEP documents was also taking place.
Table 2
Data Collection Timeline
Research Questions

What are the perceptions
of general education
teachers on the
effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?

Data Collection
Timeline
Questionnaire-All special educators Administer
teaching students in grades 7-9 will January 2023
be provided with a questionnaire to
complete related to perceptions of
Administer
inclusionary practices
February/March
2023
Semi-Structured interview
Protocol-All special educators
teaching grades 7-9 will be
included
Questionnaire-Six randomly
Administer
selected general educators from
January 2023
each grade level in grades 7-9 will
be selected (totaling 21 completed
questionnaires)
Administer
March/April 2023

What are the identified
inclusionary practices in
grades 7-9 within
individualized education
plans?

Semi-Structured Interview
Protocol-Two randomly selected
general educators from each grade
level in grades 7-9 will be selected
to participate (6 total)
IEP checklist for evaluating
inclusionary practices within the
IEP-15 student IEPs will be
selected at each grade level totaling
45 IEPs will be evaluated

Semi-structured Interview Protocol

Administer
February thru
March 2023

What are the perceptions
of special education
teachers on the
effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?

What are the observable
inclusionary practices
being implemented in
grades 7-9?

Data Sources

This question will yield answers
based on additional clarification

Administer
January thru
March 2023

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

53

during the semi-structured
interview process
An analysis of semi-structured
interviews, questionnaires, and the
IEPs will yield answers to this
question

The data collection tools utilized asked for information that correlated with the
capstone project research questions that were approved by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) of Penn West University-California. IRB approval was received on October 18,
2022. This approval was received via email designated in Appendix G. All data
collection instruments are attached (Appendices A thru D). Consent for participation was
also approved by the IRB (Appendices E and F).
The research design, methods, and data collection were planned intentionally in
order to yield the necessary information for the purpose of the study. An effective
timeline was developed for data collection. The developed data collection tools engaged
the randomly selected participants. All data collected was in alignment with the research
questions and provided rich and experiential insights from randomly selected
professionals. The validity and limitations will provide further critical information
related to the findings of the study.
Validity
Triangulation is “a method in which multiple forms of data are collected and
compared to enhance the validity and credibility of a research study” (Hendricks, 2017).
Multiple strategies of data collection were utilized to increase the validity of the data
collection throughout this action research study resulting in triangulation of the data.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

54

Based on the type of study and processes utilized, the study is credible, transferable, and
dependable.
Utilizing multiple data sources, or triangulating the data, in this qualitative action
research study help strengthen the validity and credibility of the study. By identifying
participants who have close connections to the research topic, personal and professional
in-depth knowledge collected for analysis is credible. The qualitative data collected
included the opportunity for participants to provide insight through a questionnaire
completed by the participant. Detailed note taking by the researcher through interviews
captured additional information related to special education inclusionary practices. With
an analysis of student IEP’s another form of data was collected that was concrete and
provided through authentic written documents.
Due to the appropriate nature of action research based on the identified problem
results of the study can be transferable to other settings and individuals within the district
or other districts of similar structure resources. If this study was to occur in another
district of similar demographics, setting, and programmatic design, the initial results of
this study would lead to ongoing investigation with other participants. Within the current
setting, the results would also provide to be useful at other grade levels and transition
points to make recommendations that would enhance programmatic fidelity.
Study findings have a high level of dependability. Though a small random
sample size was utilized, a variety of participants were selected. The participants were
told throughout the data collection process that participation was voluntary. In addition,
researchers were informed through consent what information would be collected
anonymously and what information would be identified by a participant number. By

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

55

utilizing appropriate consent methods, participants were provided ample opportunity to
not participate and have a clear understanding of the goal of the research study. Based on
selection, informed consent, and methodology of the study, findings would be able to be
replicated to other participants and settings. As a result, the study findings are
dependable to support additional research in this area.
Limitations
Several variables may have served as limitations to the study. Initial limitations
were due to provided timelines and the nature of action research. This particular study
focused on a targeted population to include teachers and students in grades 7-9. In order
to conduct the necessary research in the provided time frame with reasonable data
amounts to analyze, it was necessary to limit the scope. Additional identified limitations
included sample size, knowledge of the researcher, and the researcher’s presumed bias.
The overall sample size of participants utilized in the study is a limitation. A
smaller sample size was determined to be necessary to complete the study within a
designated timeframe and to have manageable data to analyze. However, the
participation size is a “snapshot” of district teachers who provide instruction to students
receiving special education services. The participants give a small sample of teacher
perceptions and experiential information of the inconsistent implementation of
inclusionary practices in grades 7-9. The 50% participation rate of general educators is
also a limitation related to the sample population. Also, by selecting only active
classroom teachers, an important group of stakeholders, building principals, were not
included in the study. Principals are key members of IEP teams, and as the required local
education agency member of an IEP team, are responsible for the implementation of

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

56

services in the building. Future studies with more participants, including Principals and
assistant principals, could impact the collection and analysis of the data and provide more
thorough conclusions or recommendations based on a greater data set.
A second potential limitation of the study could also be the nature of the action
research environment. Though the selected participants were valid and credible based on
educational and professional experiences, a possibility does exist that the participants
were too familiar with the researcher’s invested interest in the research topic due to being
a former special educator in the district. Therefore, responses could potentially be
skewed if the participants did not provide their own constructive and specific feedback.
Though action research provides the benefit of researching a topic within a researcher’s
work environment, the relationship of the participants to the researcher could impact
responses and outcomes.
The third limitation is the researcher’s presumed bias to the topic and participants.
As a former special educator, director of student support services, and now an assistant
superintendent, the researcher has an invested interest in the topic and a clear passion in
the field of special education. Though the participant selection process was done in a
way to reduce bias, the researcher may have different experiences and knowledge about
participants related to the topic. Even with the development of specific questions and
random selection to reduce bias, the researcher could be unaware of personal and
professional biases within the study.
Summary
This qualitative research study was designed to gain insights from individuals
with first-hand knowledge and experience related to the implementation of inconsistent

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

57

special education inclusionary practices. A study was warranted in this area in order to
provide recommendations and conclusions that lead to more consistent and fluid
experiences for student and teachers across classrooms, grade levels, and content area.
Chapter III Methodology outlined the purpose of the study, participants and setting,
intervention/research plan, and methods of data collection. In addition, methods of
validity and limitations were identified.
Multiple data points were collected. The data were collected through three
methods-a questionnaire, a semi-structured interview, and a researcher developed
checklist. The participants were active teachers within two school settings teaching
special education students in grades 7-9. By collecting information on special educator
and general educator teachers’ perceptions and observations and analyzing IEPs, the data
collected will help guide conclusions and recommendations to increase programmatic
fidelity and consistency for teachers and students.
Finally, by utilizing various forms of inquiry data, the study yielded rich data to
inform conclusions and recommendations in the area of special education inclusionary
practices. The analysis will provide results to the identified research questions and will
be communicated in the following chapter-Chapter IV-Data Analysis and Results. By
conducting this action research study, the researcher has been able to provide
opportunities within the identified district for reflection of practices that can enhance the
opportunity for educators to participate in new practices to increase the implementation
of consistent inclusionary practices.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

58

Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
In this chapter, the data analysis and results are presented in alignment with the
four research questions that were identified in the previous chapters. The results include
primarily qualitative data gathered through questionnaires and participation in semistructured interviews from special education and general education teachers. Minimal
quantitative data was collected utilizing a Likert Scale during the structured interview
process. Additionally, data specific to student IEPs in grades 7-9, was collected through
a researcher designed checklist.
Data collection was specific to special education and general education teacher’s
perceptions related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices, the
inclusionary practices implemented, and identified inclusionary practices within IEPs.
Throughout the analysis and summary of results, the researcher examined the data for
themes and patterns within responses. The themes and patterns began to answer the four
research questions and will lead to further recommendations on steps to develop in order
to implement more consistent inclusionary practices for students in grades 7-9. The data
collected and analyzed is specific to one district, but the data analysis could benefit other
districts with similar demographics, percentage of special education students, and level of
special education resources.
Data Analysis
Multiple tools were utilized in order to collect data that was primarily qualitative
in nature. Data was collected over a two-month period of time by utilizing a
questionnaire, semi-structured interview guides, and a researcher-developed checklist to

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

59

analyze student IEPs. The data collection was not designed to provide comparative data
after an intervention. Data was collected in order to be critically analyzed to provide
further recommendations based on the key research questions.
By utilizing an online google form questionnaire format for special educators and
general educators, all responses were easily transferred into an Excel spreadsheet or pie
charts. The researcher utilized a coding scheme to review open-ended responses by
looking for positive (+) and negative comments (-). This data was reported on an
additional tab within the Excel spreadsheet. Additional open-ended response questions
also resulted in comments being reported on the newly created tab to begin to look for
emerging trends within comments and recommendations provided by teachers. The
information reported was color-coded for further analysis.
The teacher semi-structured interview responses were analyzed by the researcher
similarly to the questionnaires. However, given that all of the interview responses were
collected by the researcher on a document, the coding scheme required an individual
review of each participant’s responses. The goal of the process was similar to the
analysis of the questionnaire. The researcher utilized a coding scheme to review openended responses by looking for positive (+) and negative comments (-). This data was
reported on an additional tab within the Excel spreadsheet. Additional open-ended
response questions also resulted in comments being reported on the newly created tab to
begin to look for emerging trends within comments and recommendations provided by
teachers. The information reported was color coded for further analysis.
A final component of the data analysis was the review of the IEP checklists. The
researcher reviewed components of the checklist to answer the questions “What are the

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

60

identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?”
The completion of the checklists required more time than initially anticipated by the
researcher. This was due to the various degree of student need that may have included
more SDI in the IEP and/or the method in which the SDI were written. Once the
checklists were completed, the analysis was conducted by condensing information onto a
spreadsheet. Type of special education support was tallied by hand. A summary of the
percentage of time a student participates in the general education setting was developed.
The identified SDI on the checklist were listed with a manual collection of the SDI, and
the identification of whether the SDI was “specific to provide consistent
implementation”. Additional notes for further recommendation were collected. This
component of the data analysis was time intensive in order to determine the best method
of reporting the data.
Results
Four different data collection sets were analyzed: the special education teacher
questionnaire, the general education teacher questionnaire, semi-structured interview
guides with identical questions for the special education and general education teachers,
and the IEP checklist. When beginning the data analysis phase, the researcher broke the
data results into sections: special education teachers’ responses, general education
teachers’ responses, and IEP checklist themes. Information analyzed related to the
implementation of inclusionary practices and professional development are included at
the conclusion of the results section. Given that the majority of the data collected was
qualitative, by breaking the data results into sections, themes and patterns will be
reported through either percentages, qualitative statements, or narrative based on the

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

61

emerging trends and patterns identified. All respondents provided meaningful input in
various ways when completing the questionnaire and/or participating in the semistructured interviews.
Special Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis
The special education teacher questionnaire (Appendix C) was completed by eight
special educators with varied years of teaching experience. When analyzing the
questionnaire, the majority of the questions were open-ended to receive an in-depth
understanding of the implementation of inclusionary practices. Additionally, three
specific questions allowed the respondent to provide a “yes” or “no” response. The
questions were specific to the implementation of inclusionary practices across grade
levels, classrooms, and content areas. When asked “Do you feel that inclusionary
practices are implemented consistently across grade levels?”, the majority of respondents
(62.5%) indicated that inclusionary practices were not implemented consistently across
grade levels (Figure 1). Special educators were also asked to reflect on the consistent
implementation of inclusionary practices in their own classes as shown in Figure 2. The
majority of respondents, 75% said “yes” that inclusionary practices were implemented
consistently in their classroom. In contrast, when specifically asked, “Do you feel that
inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across content areas?” only 12. 5 %,
1 respondent (Figure 3), indicated “yes”. Based on the responses from three “yes” or “no”
questions, it is evident that special educators have a perception that inclusionary practices
are not implemented consistently.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
Figure 1
Special Educator Across Grade Levels

Figure 2
Special Educator Across Own Classes

Figure 3
Special Educator Across Content Areas

62

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

63

The questionnaire completed by special educators provided insight on the
definition of inclusionary practices. Based on the review of the definitions provided and
the consideration of the literature review in Chapter II, 75% of the respondents provided
definitions that were in alignment with definitions included in Chapter II. Jamie Pearson,
Ph.D, stated that inclusive education means that students with and without disabilities
learn alongside one another, in the same classroom setting, with lessons that are
accessible for all (Bowen, 2020). Three out of eight (38% of respondents) specifically
mentioned co-teaching or references to classroom support as part of their definition.
When further analyzing the special educator questionnaire, it appears that
questions 6 and 7 on the survey yielded similar responses even though the questions were
clearly looking to identify two separate pieces of information. Question 6 asked
participants, “If you have identified that inconsistencies are observed/do exist, identify
the inconsistencies that students experience.” Whereas, question 7 asked participants,
“What would you identify as reasons to why inclusionary practices are implemented
consistently or inconsistently for the students on your special education caseload?”
However, it could be inferred that the participants also identify that the inconsistencies
are also the reasons for the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices. For
example, the mindset of the general education/co- teacher was an identified theme across
both questions.
In response to question 6, one of the major themes identified for inconsistencies
was how the special educator is utilized in the general education classroom. Five out of
eight, 63% of the respondents indicated that how teacher support is utilized contributes to
the inconsistencies that students experience. Participant 6 stated, “I think we still

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

64

struggle with co-teaching models. I can identify various models in our building that
demonstrate true co-teaching and models that still function with the co-teacher acting as a
support professional, and that is not what best practices look like.” Another identified
inconsistency was the teacher not following specific accommodations. This will be
further discussed when reviewing the analysis of the IEP checklists.
The reasons for inconsistencies had three common themes: planning (time and
common planning time), mindset of some general education teachers, and staffing
(consistent co-teaching staff and staffing to support consistent practices). Additional
comments for inconsistencies included individuals needing to know how to co-teach, the
lack of special education teacher content knowledge, and the emphasis put on educator
effectiveness through The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) and
Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS) scores.
Special Education Teacher Interview Analysis
The special education teacher semi-structured interview provided further
information to answer the research questions, “What are the perceptions of special
education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” and “What are the
observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?”. The majority of
the questions provided the interview participants with opportunities to give open-ended
responses based on their experiences. However, two questions were developed to require
the participant rate their comfort and effectiveness related to the implementation of
inclusionary practices on a scale of 1-5. Overall, the interviews with special educators
provided the researcher with considerable insight to the practices happening within

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

65

grades 7-9 and strong recommendations for continued growth within this area to enhance
consistent and programmatic experiences for students.
Special education teachers were asked to discuss their perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of inclusionary practices. Once all interviews were conducted, responses
were divided into positive and negative perceptions. In addition, the responses were also
broken out by grade level due to student schedule differences in the middle school and
high school. Table 3 provides the overall themes connected to the positive and negative
perceptions on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices.
Table 3
Special Education Teacher Perceptions

Negative Perceptions

Positive Perceptions

Grades 7 and 8

Grade 9

When not done well, leads
to lack of understanding
and lack of respect in adult
relationships
Comments about parent
complaints and behaviors
of students
Need planning time to
implement effectively

Preferential seating is
overused

Effective when teacher is
in all one content area

Availability of audio
materials for all students

When it is done right, kids
benefit
District has many resources
to implement practices

Co-teaching

Reading in the content area
is difficult for students in
upper grade levels
Need common planning
time to implement
effectively

Inclusion support in English
and science for small group,
attention, student/staff ratio

Three areas related to the implementation of inclusionary practices were teacher
comfort, teacher effectiveness, and professional development. When special educators

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

66

were asked to rate their comfort level on a scale of 1 to 5, the average response for
comfort was 4.625; whereas, effectiveness had an average rating of 3.875. Concerns
related to effectiveness included the amount of available planning time and the need to
know the content when working in a new co-taught content area classroom. Fifty
percent of the special educators interviewed indicated that they have had some form of
professional development, but all indicated that they have not had recent professional
development particularly in the area of co-teaching.
During the interview process, the researcher asked questions with a focus on
stakeholder feedback, parents and students, related to the implementation of inconsistent
inclusionary practices. An analysis of responses yielded a continuum of responses
related to parental attitudes, but nothing specific to inclusionary practices. However, a
theme was identified in parental feedback consistent to transition years between
buildings. When a student transitions to a different level within the district some parents
express concern and lack clarity on services. Parents question the difference in how a
student is scheduled or where a student should seek support. Student feedback did not
yield responses related to inclusionary practices, but it does appear that students focus
more on specific teacher feedback than the actual focus on supports and services that they
receive through his/her IEPs.
General Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis
The general education teacher questionnaire (Appendix B) was completed by
general educators randomly selected across content areas. When analyzing the
questionnaire, the majority of the questions were open-ended to receive an in-depth
understanding of the implementation of inclusionary practices. Three specific questions

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

67

allowed the respondents to provide a “yes” or “no” response. The questions were
specific to the implementation of inclusionary practices across grade levels, classrooms,
and content areas. When asked “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented
consistently across grade levels?”, the majority of respondents (56.3%) indicated that
inclusionary practices were implemented consistently across grade levels (Figure 4).
Similar to special educators, general educators were also asked to reflect on the consistent
implementation of inclusionary practices in their own classes (Figure 5). The majority of
respondents, 68.8% said “Yes” that inclusionary practices were implemented consistently
in their classroom. Finally, when asked, “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are
implemented consistently across content areas?” 62.5% (Figure 6) indicated “Yes”.
Based on the responses from three “yes” or “no” questions, it appears that general
educators have a perception that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently
across their own classes, grade levels, and content areas on average 62.5% of the time.
This would be in contrast to how special educators are viewing the implementation of
inclusionary practices. As a result, this difference in perception between the two groups
could be another variable contributing to the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary
practices.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
Figure 4
General Educator Across Grade Level

Figure 5
General Educator Across Own Classes

68

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

69

Figure 6
General Educator Across Content Areas

The questionnaire completed by general educators also provided insight on the
definition of inclusionary practices. A range of definitions was provided by the general
educators on Question 1 within the survey. However, based on the review of the
definitions provided and the consideration of the literature review in Chapter II, 75% of
the respondents provided definitions that were in alignment with definitions included in
Chapter II. The responses analyzed with the 75% alignment included statements of
inclusion (regular education and special education), full access to learning, and coteaching. Separately, three teachers (18.75% of respondents) identified specific
accommodations provided as the definition for inclusionary practices. One definition
would be considered a mindset response, “Allowing special education students to
participate as much as they’re able.” However, though the researcher has analyzed this as
a mindset based on the word “allowing”; it is possible that the respondent used the word
“allowing” in a way that was not meant to be a mindset approach. This response will be
further discussed in Chapter V.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

70

Similar to the special education teacher interview, general educators were asked
to identify the inconsistencies that are observed and reasons why the inclusionary
practices are implemented consistently or inconsistently. When further analyzing the
general educator questionnaire, respondents provided overlapping responses to both
questions. However, it could be inferred that the participants also identify that the
inconsistencies are also the reasons for the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary
practices. For example, mindset of educators, special education teacher follow-up and
support, student perceptions, and adequate staffing were included in statements across
both questions.
When general educators were asked to identify the inconsistencies, 31%
responded that this question was not applicable to them. The open-ended responses did
not yield any thematic patterns related to the inconsistencies. Thorough responses were
provided for further consideration by the researcher. One particular response would be
necessary to further consider when exploring the data summary of the IEP checklists.
Respondent 14 stated, “Students in my academic level class often do not use all of the
accommodations that they have available to them. In the academic setting
accommodations are often unwelcome to the student because they may draw unwanted
attention to themselves. For example, testing in an alternative setting requires them to
not be in with their peers when a test is given.” Additional responses for consideration
included staffing (amount of and qualifications), remembering the amount and type of
accommodations for students, and the varied opinions of educators.
The reasons for inconsistencies included teacher mindset, staffing, and
relationships. Mindset rationale included statements related to how parents leverage an

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

71

IEP. It was also clear that general education teachers have varied experiences with
special education staffing to include aides and/or teachers. Statements related to
inadequate staffing amounts were reflected more as an inconsistency versus a reason as
identified in this question. Regarding relationships, respondents identified five
statements that provided insight on the importance of relationships with students and the
special education teacher. Additional comments for inconsistencies included the role of
the high school student schedule and time within a student’s schedule to provide support.
Finally, 94% (15/16) of the respondents felt that they contributed to a student’s IEP and
recommendations for support in a meaningful way.
General Educator Teacher Interview Analysis
The general educator teacher semi-structured interview provided further
information to answer the research questions, “What are the perceptions of general
education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” and “What are the
observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?”. The instrument
tool for this data collection was identical to the semi-structured interview protocol used to
gather information from special education teachers. The interviews with general
educators provided a different perspective than special educators, but one consistent area
was related to teacher mindset. As an overview, the perspectives on some of the
accommodations varied as well as what is needed for professional development.
However, general educator interviews, though limited, provided the researcher with
considerable insight to the practices happening within grades 7-9 and strong
recommendations for continued growth within this area to enhance consistent and
programmatic experiences for students.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

72

General education teachers were asked to discuss their perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of inclusionary practices. Once all the interviews were conducted,
responses were divided into positive and negative perceptions (Table 4). Due to the
limited participation rate of the general educators in the interview, the responses will not
be divided by levels, but will be presented as an overall summary of negative and positive
perceptions.
Table 4
General Education Teacher Perceptions
Negative Perceptions

Not enough resources to adequately meet the needs of
students
Inconsistent perspectives between special education and
general education
Testing accommodations due to preparing students for the
Keystones, because Keystone accommodations are
restricted

Positive Perceptions

Preferential seating is effective if used appropriately
Students have a huge line of support through the ALS
(applied learning strategies) teacher
Co-teaching goes fairly well when a relationship exists
between the special education and general education teacher
Remediation support is a positive

Three areas related to the implementation of inclusionary practices were teacher
comfort, teacher effectiveness, and professional development. When general educators
were asked to rate their comfort level, the average response for comfort was 4.625;
whereas, effectiveness had an average of rating 4.375. Concerns related to effectiveness
included the level of need within a classroom and being able to meet the needs of every

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

73

student. One out of four teachers indicated that they have received some professional
development in this area, but it was more specific to student support services than
inclusionary practices. Seventy-five percent (3 out of 4) indicated that the student needs
sessions provided at the beginning of the school year are beneficial, but often
overwhelming. All general educators indicated a desire to have further professional
development related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and special
education. More specifically, two indicated that training on the special education process
and understanding the legality of the document is needed.
During the interview process, a focus was also placed on stakeholder feedback,
parents and students, related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices.
One out of four teachers (25%) indicated that they have received positive feedback
related to inclusion and appreciation for the student experience. However, the majority
indicated that parents typically go to the special education teacher for questions or
feedback. Student feedback did not yield any specific responses related to inclusionary
practices.
Implementing Consistent Inclusionary Practices
During the semi-structured interview process, special educators and general
educators were both asked “In order for you to more effectively implement consistent
inclusion practices, what do you need? What recommendations or suggestions would
assist you?” Table 5 identifies themes in response to the questions. The information for
this question set was analyzed separately, but in order to support further
recommendations, it is important to report the information in a manner that demonstrates
the similar needs between the two groups of educators.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

74

Table 5
Themes of Recommendations or Suggestions
Special Education

General Education

Time and planning with co-teacher

Time and Space

Review SDI checklists more throughout
the year

Professional development on inclusion
(general education teachers have
misconceptions-understand the special
education process and legality of the
document

Allow a special education teacher to
become a content expert for inclusion
Provide customized feedback on student
placement, scheduling

Student scheduling (spread students
across sections)

Professional Development on co-teaching

Professional development on co-teaching

Based on the identified themes across the two groups, special educator and
general educator, it is evident that the recommendations and suggestions are similar in
nature, but perhaps based on different experiences. General educators wish to have
professional development in order to understand the process of special education and coteaching. Special educators see the need for ongoing professional development related to
co-teaching in order to continue to further enhance the experiences for teachers and
students. Overall, the common similarity in themes is the need for time to plan.
IEP Checklist Analysis
The researcher developed an IEP Checklist (Appendix D) in order to collect
information to answer the research question, “What are the identified inclusionary
practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” Overall, 45 IEPs across
the three grade levels were analyzed. Data collected in this area also provided further

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

75

insight to draw connections between what is written in a legal document and the input
gathered from the teacher participants.
Results from the analysis will include the following information: level/type of
special education supports, percentage included within the general education setting, and
frequently identified inclusionary practices (specially designed instruction, SDI). The
study was limited to students identified as learning support or speech and language
support. IEPs that were specific to special education programs in the district such as life
skills support and emotional support were not included in the study. In addition to the
identified inclusionary practices, a summary will be developed based on the
determination of the ability to implement an SDI consistently.
Prior to providing the information from the IEP checklists, it is necessary to
provide further background information on the content being reported. A student’s IEP
must indicate the type of special education support and include the amount and type of
support. For the purpose of this study, the randomly selected IEPs included students with
an amount of special education support, which was itinerant or supplemental. The
amount is known as “face-time” with special education personnel. Itinerant support
occurs when special education supports and services are provided by special education
personnel for 20% or less of the school day. Supplemental support occurs when services
provided by special education personnel is more than 20% but less than 80%. Type was
either speech and language support or learning support. The final aspect is the “space
time”, so the percentage of time a student is included in the regular classroom.
An analysis of the 15 randomly selected IEPs in 7th grade yielded the following
information. In 7th grade, 80% (Figure 7) of students were receiving a supplemental level

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

76

of support. Twelve out of the 15 IEPs have students participating in the general
education setting for 80% or more of a scheduled school day.
Figure 7
7th Grade Type of Special Education Support

13%
7%
80%

Supplemental LS

Itinerant LS

Speech/Language

Based on the information in Table 6, seven SDI were identified more frequently
out of the 15 IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. SDI that included clear
frequencies, examples, and frequency were determined to be written specific for
implementation. For example, many of the extended time accommodations had a
percentage provided. The researcher is aware that this is necessary for future College
Board accommodation requests. Preferential seating was considered to be written
specific if a location or rationale was provided such as “away from distractions or near
the point of instruction”. Additional SDI were written in some student IEPs that were
specifically written based on the individual needs of a student. One example that
provided specificity included, “Check-ins during individual work to monitor completion
and behaviors”.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

77

Table 6
7th Grade Frequently Identified SDI
Specially Designed
Instruction

Number of Students

Specific to Provide Consistent
Implementation (Percentage)

Extended Time

11

82%

Small Group Testing

13

77%

Preferential Seating

8

88%

Scheduled Support

10

100%

Organizational Support

7

71%

Executive Functioning
(Chunking assignments)

9

56%

1:1 Editing

6

50%

The analysis of the 15 randomly selected IEPs in 8h grade provided further insight
related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. In 8th grade, 87%
(Figure 8) of students were receiving a supplemental level of support. Similar to 7th
grade, a majority of students, 10 out of the 15 IEPs in 8th grade, identified that students
are participating in the general education setting for 80% or more of a scheduled school
day. No students receiving speech and language support were randomly selected. Based
on this information, the level of special education support provided in 7th and 8th
fluctuates slightly while the time spent in the general education setting is consistent.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

78

Figure 8
8th Grade Type of Special Education Support

13%

87%

Supplemental LS

Itinerant LS

Based on the information in Table 7, seven SDI were identified more frequently
out of the 15 eighth grade IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. SDI that included
clear frequencies, examples, and specificity were determined to be written for consistent
implementation. Again, many of the extended time accommodations had a percentage
provided. Small group testing was extremely specific to identify at either the end of a
unit of study/topic. Preferential seating was considered to be written specific if a location
or rationale was provided such as “near positive peers”. When considering the
specificity of 1:1 editing, two IEPs specified for “lengthier assignments” which provided
guidance on when to implement; whereas one IEP identified frequency as daily. This
will be further discussed in Chapter V, however, the ability to implement 1:1 editing on a
consistent and daily basis could present challenges for implementation. The researcher
noticed that additional SDI were included in several students’ IEPs related to writing
supports.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

79

Table 7
8th Grade Frequently Identified SDI
Specially Designed
Instruction

Number of Students

Specific to Provide Consistent
Implementation (Percentage)

Extended Time

10

77%

Small Group Testing

14

100%

Preferential Seating

5

80%

Scheduled Support

7

86%

Graphic Organizers

5

40%

Executive Functioning
(Chunking assignments)

8

88%

1:1 Editing

7

23%

The final set of data reviewed was the completed checklists of the 15 randomly
selected IEPs in 9th grade. As identified in Figure 9, 60% of students were receiving a
supplemental level of support. Scheduled support was not referenced in the analyzed
IEPs, but more specifically course selection such as “Inclusion English 9” was included.
Out of the 15 IEPs, nine students were participating in the general education setting for
80% or more of a scheduled school day. It is also not common to have a student
receiving speech and language services in the 9th grade.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

80

Figure 9
9th Grade Type of Special Education Support

7%
33%
60%

Supplemental LS

Itinerant LS

Speech/Language

Based on the information in Table 8, six SDI were identified more frequently out
of the 15 ninth grade IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. Again, many of the
extended time accommodations had a percentage provided. Small group testing was
extremely specific to identify at either the end of a unit of study/topic. Preferential
seating was considered to be written specific if a location or rationale was provided. The
amount of SDI written into IEPs appeared to decrease in IEPs that had required annual
meetings during the school year prior to the data collection window. However, some SDI
were still more specific to the middle school needs of the student.
Table 8
9th Grade Frequently Identified SDI
Specially Designed
Instruction

Number of Students

Specific to Provide Consistent
Implementation (Percentage)

Extended Time

11

82%

Small Group Testing

14

100%

Preferential Seating

5

100%

Graphic Organizers

5

100%

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

81

Executive Functioning
(Chunking assignments)

12

67%

1:1 Editing

3

67%

Discussion
The purpose of this action research study was to collect data from educators who
are working with students receiving special education services in order to further
understand the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices and identify
findings to aid in the development of a framework for professional development that
would increase the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. Once the data
was collected and analyzed through the developed tools, the identified themes and
patterns were able to provide the researcher with the ability to provide insight to the four
research questions:
•

What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?

•

What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?

•

What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized
education plans?

•

What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?

The collected and analyzed data will provide additional conclusions and
recommendations. Based on the information that was collected, it is clear that teachers,
special education and general education, have varied definitions of inclusionary practices,
observe inconsistencies within the implementation of the practices, and have identified

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

82

reasons for the inconsistencies related to time, staff, teacher mindset, and a need for
professional development. However, those interviewed did identify a level of comfort
with implementing inclusionary practices, but due to the identified reasons for
inconsistencies varied ratings connected to effectiveness were evident.
Overall, the 45 IEPs that were analyzed could provide a broad summary of
information regarding the district and future needs. The literature review provided data
specific to the Upper St. Clair School District. The district’s special education data report
identified that 68.2% of special education students received instruction in the regular
education classroom for 80% or more of the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center,
2022). When condensing the data from the random selection, 68.9% of the students are
included in regular education classes for 80% or more of the school day. Finally, when
combining the percentages of the most common SDI in IEPs, 75.55% of the SDI are
written specific enough for consistent implementation.
Data was triangulated through the use of four various types of data collection tools
and methods: the special education teacher questionnaire, the general education teacher
questionnaire, semi-structured interview guides with identical questions for the special
education and general education teachers, and the IEP checklist.
Summary
The data presented above answers the proposed research questions. Results
included primarily qualitative data gathered through questionnaires and participation in
semi-structured interviews. Minimal quantitative data was collected during the interview
process. Data specific to student IEPs in grades 7-9 also provided an essential piece of

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

83

information related to the overall problem of the implementation of inconsistent
inclusionary practices.
In the following chapter, the researcher will provide conclusions to the research
questions based on the data presented in this chapter. Given the focus on investigating
the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary special education practices in grades 7-9,
the concrete data reviewed will provide tangible and manageable recommendations.
Recommendations will be provided based on the conclusions from the data analysis as
well as areas to be considered for potential further examination.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

84

Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
The implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices creates varied
educational experiences for special education students and teachers. It is natural that
perceived experiences will vary; however, how when an inclusionary practice is
implemented for a student, the implementation should not vary by classroom, content
areas, or grade levels. Inconsistencies that lead to varied experiences can create
unnecessary requests for different teachers, potential legal concerns, and concerns about
program effectiveness. A student’s IEP should provide information to guide the
implementation of an SDI and provide essential information to support a more consistent
implementation.
Special education practices have evolved throughout the history of education to
require inclusionary practices to be delivered in the least restrictive environment.
Inclusionary practices implemented in the LRE can vary by student, but the essence of
the special education law is the same regardless of the inclusionary practices. Students
need to be included to the fullest extent possible with continual evaluation of
considerations to determine if additional, or fewer, SDI are necessary for students to be
successful in the least restrictive environment.
This study investigated the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary special
education practices in grades 7-9. Based on the data, it is clear that a large percentage of
special education students participate in the general education setting for 80% or more of
the school day. However, concerns were raised regarding how consistently inclusionary
practices are implemented across grade levels, content areas, and individual teacher’s

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

85

classrooms. Concerns were also expressed related to the implementation of special
education services when a student transitions from one building to the next within the
district. The research process conducted throughout this study provided the researcher
with baseline information to make recommendations to the district to work towards
implementing inclusionary practices more consistently in order to increase programmatic
fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide opportunities
that are consistent with expectations under the law. By analyzing the perspectives of
teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices, the observable inclusionary
practices, and identified inclusionary practices within IEPs, the necessary data was
gained to provide findings and recommendations. It is clear that the COVID-19
pandemic has had an impact on the necessary professional development provided to
teachers over the last two years. In addition, it is also perceived that students’ needs have
also changed over the last two years. Research participants are eager to have access to
professional development in this area in order to grow as educators and provide
consistent opportunities to students.
Conclusions
After analyzing the data collected during this action research study, it can be
affirmed that the implementation of inclusionary practices is inconsistent due to a variety
of factors. The factors include lack of professional development on related topics to
inclusionary practices, time and common planning, and the vast needs of students within
a classroom setting. Based on questionnaire analysis, a difference between general
educators and special educators does exist on the degree in which the practices are
implemented consistently. The mindset and understanding of teachers also impact

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

86

perspectives related to special education or the special education support provided. As a
result, unintentional inconsistencies are created. Despite the inconsistencies, teachers are
looking for additional opportunities, in and out of the classroom, to be able to meet
student’s needs and provide more consistency.
Research Question 1
The first research question of this study was “What are the perceptions of special
education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” Based on the
responses to three questions on the questionnaire about inclusionary practices across
grade levels, own classes, and content areas, it is evident that special educators have a
perception that inclusionary practices are not implemented consistently, but are effective
for students when they are implemented. Special educators in grades 7-9 have the unique
opportunity to work with many general educators and see the implementation of
inclusionary practices from a specialized perspective. Special educators believe that one
of the reasons for inconsistencies is how the special educator is utilized in the general
education classroom. Special educators are comfortable with implementing inclusionary
practices, but indicated that they felt less effective in the actual implementation.
Overall, planning (time and common planning time), mindset of general
educators, and staffing (consistent co-teaching staff and staffing to support consistent
practices) were common perceptions for reasons why inconsistent implementation was
occurring and was impacting the effectiveness of the inclusionary practices. In addition,
all special educators indicated that they have not had recent professional development
particularly in the area of co-teaching. A practice that is helpful to special educators and

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

87

general educators is the student needs day built into professional development at the
beginning of the school year.
Research Question 2
Similar to the first research questions, the second research question of this study
was “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of
inclusionary practices?” When combining the three areas, general educators rated the
consistent implementation of inclusionary practices across grade level, own class, and
content areas slightly higher than special educators. Based on information gathered
during the semi-structured interview, though limited from general educators due to
participation, the researcher felt that this was due to the content specific nature and
training of the general educator. Unlike special educators who are working with many
staff members, a general educator would have more generalized experience in their own
classroom or have informal conversations with colleagues to gain insight on what is
happening outside of his/her classroom.
Another component of data analyzed for this question was how general educators
define inclusionary practices. Though 75% of the participants provided definitions in
alignment with the research in Chapter II, how others defined inclusionary practices
could impact how consistently inclusionary practices are implemented. “Allowing
special education students to participate as much as they are able” demonstrates also the
need for professional development in this area and may not necessarily be a negative
perception, but a lack of information to support the general educator. However, another
general educator defined inclusionary practices as “In class, we have a full range of
students. The job of inclusion is to meet students at their own level and help them

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

88

participate fully in class.” Based on the information from the data collection tools, it was
also affirmed that general educators perceive that inclusionary practices are not
implemented consistently.
General educators interviewed felt comfortable and effective in implementing
inclusionary practices. Concerns related to effectiveness included the level of need
within a classroom and being able to meet the needs of every student. Additional
perceptions related to the effectiveness included inconsistent perspectives between
special education and general education teachers and the difference between testing
accommodations on a daily basis versus what is permitted on state level standardized
testing.
Research Question 3
“What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized
education plans?” Across all three grade levels and 45 IEPs, IEPs consistently included
five inclusionary practices more than other SDI: extended time, small group testing,
preferential seating, executive functioning (chunking), and 1:1 editing. Scheduled
support was written as a support in grades 7 and 8, but not in grade 9. Though on
average, 76% of student selected IEPs are receiving a supplemental level of special
education support (more than 20% but less than 80% of the school day), 68.9% students
are being successful in the general education setting with the identified inclusionary
practices being implemented. The identified inclusionary practices were written specific
enough for consistent implementation approximately 76% of the time. By analyzing the
SDI in IEPs, teacher perceptions on effectiveness, professional development, and student
supports can be addressed through professional development.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

89

Research Question 4
The final research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices being
implemented in grades 7-9?”, was answered by an analysis of all three data collection
measures. Emerging themes on the observable inclusionary practices primarily included
co-teaching and preferential seating. However, comments related to providing
accommodations would indicate that a correlation can be made connecting
accommodations with inclusionary practices. General educators indicated that it was at
times difficult to implement an SDI, such as preferential seating, because when more than
a few students in a class have this as an accommodation, the seating options are limited.
In addition, without specificity, the general educator “guesses” where to seat a student.
In addition, special educators indicated that preferential seating was overused.
Application and Implications
Based on the themes of recommendations and suggestions by the special
education and general education study participants, two primary areas will be identified
for application of the study. The identified areas for planning will include professional
development and administrative support of common planning time for co-teachers.
Additionally, a final area for future discussion and planning focuses on the district.
Professional development will need to occur for both general and special
educators. First, professional development should be provided to both sets of educators
to focus on the goals and best practices of co-teaching. It will be important for the
administration to find effective professional development experiences for teachers and
then provide the necessary time to discuss and implement any new learning. Also,
effective professional development could address the concern of meeting students’ needs

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

90

in the classroom and/or the perception that it is impossible to meet all of the needs of
students in a classroom.
Next, for general educators, professional development in the area of special
education processes and legal mandates should be provided. General educators indicated
a need to have ongoing reviews of special education law and procedures. The process for
an evaluation, disability awareness, and the legalities surrounding special education
would provide more knowledge and hopefully understanding to shift some of the
mindsets around special education. Also, respondents’ input indicated that additional
informal professional development related to specific students and a review of supports
and services would be beneficial.
Finally, special educators would benefit from additional professional development
related to the written aspect of IEPs. The SDI sections of the IEPs could be written more
specifically to provide further guidance to general education staff for implementation.
The researcher identifies this recommendation based on the IEP checklist analysis and the
SDI that were not written specifically to provide consistent implementation, or frankly,
almost impossible to implement on a daily basis. Though an SDI is critical to a special
education student to access the general education environment or curriculum,
consideration should be given to the implementation of an SDI for an area that does not
include a goal within the IEP. For example, if a student does not have a writing goal,
providing context for 1:1 editing as an SDI can provide more specificity to the
implementation. An additional component is determining the frequency of an SDI. The
discussion on this may be more philosophical, but a clear understanding of frequency
would be essential to consistent implementation. The frequency of “daily” or “per the

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

91

curriculum” would be difficult to interpret if daily means the SDI is available daily or
occurs daily, and a frequency of “per the curriculum” is vague. If an IEP is indeed
individualized, the curriculum should not dictate the frequency of an SDI. Given the two
cited examples, further discussion must occur.
Also connected to the written development of IEPs, special education teachers
should review when an update or annual IEP should occur. The researcher noticed that
IEPs in 7th or 9th grade may have been more reflective of necessary SDI in the previous
building. Therefore, the specificity of an SDI was related to a specific need at that time
for a student and/or did not match a student’s current schedule. This consideration would
have the implication of time due to having more meetings between transition years.
However, this could address several concerns that were expressed throughout the process
related to the transition years from one building to the next within the district.
One of the final anticipated products of the study was to create a training
framework to guide professional development for staff working with students receiving
special education supports and services. Based on the research process implemented and
information collected, it is clear that teachers can self-assess their professional needs
related to the implementation of inclusionary practices. The goal of the framework
would lead to more meaningful and concrete professional development. Based on the
information collected throughout the study, required professional development
components would include the beginning of year student needs informational sessions
and involvement in more specific professional learning communities regarding ongoing
review of specific student inclusionary practices. Options would then be provided to

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

92

include co-teaching, special education law, and disability awareness as examples for
more individualized training.
Some participants commented that prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic,
opportunities were provided for common planning time. One way this would occur was
for both teachers to secure a substitute in order for a full-day to be taken to plan key units
or further discuss student needs. Though this recommendation has some cost associated
with it for substitute teachers, this is a very effective way to support the consistent
implementation of inclusionary practices. It would also be beneficial to expand this
common planning time approach to include other co-teachers or content areas of the same
grade level for students. When teachers identified this as a recommendation, no concerns
were raised about the need to pre-plan to be out of the classroom. The sense was that this
approach had more pros than cons to take the necessary steps for effective co-teaching
and inclusionary practice implementation. Given the concerns related to mindset and/or
inconsistencies between special education and general education teachers, providing time
to have alignment and build relationships would be critical to continue to have growth in
this area.
The Upper St. Clair School District has a strong history of educating special
education students in the general education classroom for a majority of the school day.
Historical special education data and the ongoing development of special education
programs provides evidence of this statement. However, it is important for the district to
continue to evaluate programming and continue to support teachers, students, and parents
throughout the evolution of students’ needs. An important area for district administrators
to consider is overall communication to teachers. After reviewing the master schedule

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

93

for 9th grade, it does appear that common planning time can be available to some of the
teachers. It is uncertain whether or not teachers were aware of this available common
plan time or felt that they needed “permission” to plan together. Therefore, district
administrators could begin to address concerns just through communication.
It is important for administrators and teachers to know the students. One special
educator identified “Kids are changing so we have to change to match the needs”. This
particular quote is essential to continue to grow as a district that has modeled what
inclusion should look like for students. This does not necessarily mean that more staff or
services are needed, but how the district is continuing to define inclusionary practices and
expectations for consistency is essential. Collaboration with special education leaders,
support of building level leadership, and reviewing student IEPs for consistency, fidelity
of implementation, and matching of student needs would be key components for program
evaluation.
Fiscal Implications
The fiscal implications related to this research study are minimal and will be
rooted in costs connected to professional development, potential substitute coverage
costs, and time. In addition, the costs will be minimal in comparison to the overall
district budget and may potentially be built into various budget areas, such as
professional development, as part of the district’s budget process. The district’s special
education budget is already evidence of the required financial contribution and district
investment to implement a continuum of supports and services for special education
students.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

94

Ultimately, the use of district funds to implement programming that is consistent
and provides staff with a clear understanding of inclusionary practices may have
unintended positive outcomes. Legal fees related to special education matters can
become very costly. By investing funds preemptively in programs and in training, legal
fees related to the expensive costs of legal involvement and special education due process
could be minimal. Also, as an outcome of this study, additional staff is not being
recommended to address concerns. Though concerns were presented by study
participants related to resources and staffing, recommendations at this time will not be to
increase staffing, but to provide an intense focus on refining practices and maximizing
current resources. Prior to recommending increasing staffing that would have a longterm fiscal implication for the district, the goal would be to utilize current resources to
have the unintentional positive fiscal implications for the district.
Limitations
As identified in Chapter III Methodology, several challenges or limitations of this
study need to be considered in the interpretation of findings and generalization, and or
application, of this study across the district or in similar studies. The challenges included
sample size, timeframe of study, knowledge of the researcher, and potential presumed
researcher bias. While the data collection and data analysis phase were occurring,
another potential limitation, the IEP checklist, was identified. It is important to be aware
of the potential limitations for future studies in this area.
First, the sample size was limited to special educators and general educators in
grades 7-9. However, the smaller sample size was necessary in order to have a more
focused study within the identified time parameters. The sample size was more of a

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

95

limitation in collecting data from the general educators. All special educators working
within learning support programs were selected, but a process for random selection of
general educators was necessary. In addition, the participation of general educators was
limited in comparison to special education participation. Out of the 21 general educators
selected for the questionnaire, 67% completed the question, and 4 out 6 general educators
responded to participate in the semi-structured interview process. Participation by special
educators was 100% in both the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
The data collection timeframe was limited to January 2023 thru March of 2023.
However, the timeframe could also be reduced slightly due to the sample size of
participants. Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was received midOctober 2022. Due to the focus on the literature review and then various breaks in the
school calendar, the data collection timeframe developed was appropriate given external
parameters. A longer timeframe may have allowed the researcher to identify a larger
sample size for general educator participation selection in order to increase the data
collected for analysis and then recommendations.
Two natural limitations in this type of action research study would include
knowledge of the researcher and the presumed bias of the researcher. Given the nature of
action research occurring within the researcher’s district of employment, research
participants would be familiar with the researcher’s invested interest in the topic due to
being a former special educator in the district. Also, due to the researcher’s employment
history in the district, the researcher could be unaware of personal and professional biases
within the study. The hope would be throughout the research process of random

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

96

selection and various data collection methods that the concern related to the areas of
knowledge of the researcher and presumed bias were minimal.
The data collection tools that were developed by the researcher were directly
connected to the four research questions. An additional limitation was presented
throughout the data collection process. The IEP checklist was challenging to complete
given the various ways an IEP would be written by a teacher. Some of the checklist
areas, when developed, had content that the researcher identified as essential to the study.
However, as the completion of the checklists was occurring, some areas seemed
redundant or non-essential to the goal of the study. Given the need to develop the tool as
part of the IRB approval process, this did not become apparent until the data collection
phase of the study. For example, if an IEP update occurred during the IEP year was
essential information only if it was a transition year between buildings to reflect an
update to support consistent implementation of an SDI. However, if an update did occur,
it was most likely in response to a non-essential component of the study.
Future Areas of Examination
Given the research that has been conducted, the following topics are
recommended for closer examination and potential additional research: conduct the same
study within the same scope, conduct a similar study with a different grade level, include
principals as a participant group, and determine the role of students in the study. It is
important to review the identified limitations of the study prior to potentially conducting
the same study or adjusting aspects of the study. Also, given that this action research
study already provides a framework to conduct a study related to inclusionary practices,

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

97

consideration should be given to having another lead researcher conduct the study or
utilize other members to conduct interviews, etc.
The first would be to do a follow up study utilizing the same research tools to
answer the same questions once the identified recommendations have been implemented
for a period of time. In addition, it would also be beneficial to expand the study to grades
4-7 to review key transition times for special education students between elementary and
middle school and middle to middle school.
Another important group of stakeholders in the implementation of special
education supports and services are building principals. In many cases, principals are the
identified local education agency (LEA) representative in IEP meetings. Ultimately, they
are responsible for the implementation of services in the building. Gathering information
from building level leadership on the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary
practices would assist in district program evaluation, needs of staff and students from a
different perspective, and suggestions from an LEA lens for support.
The third area for future examination would be students. When students graduate,
survey data is collected in response to transition service requirements. Collecting data
from students in grades 7-9 would be another area for future examination. Student voice
is a critical component to developing programs. However, this recommendation would
require a more in-depth process for IRB approval if done as a formal research study.
Therefore, consideration could be given to collecting informal feedback during an IEP
meeting with parents present. Pros and cons would exist to this recommendation for
feedback, but it could provide another key component on student experience and
necessary supports and services.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

98

Summary
The study’s conclusions were based on the collected information from credible
and reliable research participants based on actual classroom experiences. The data was
analyzed to answer the research questions. Conclusions then led to providing further
information for application and implications for district special education inclusionary
practices. The conclusions drawn from this study have meaningful and practical
applications to reduce the inconsistencies that are experienced by teachers and students.
Ultimately, the district is already fortunate to have a strong history and foundation in
implementing inclusive practices.
Based on the conclusions of this study, it is also clear that the participants of the
study have a desire to continue to be invested in growing as professionals in order to
support special education students in the general education setting. The areas for focus
include professional development for special and general educators and the support of
administration to provide more common planning time. Educators within the district
provided reflective and practical information to enhance the opportunity for educators to
participate in new practices to increase the implementation of consistent inclusionary
practices.
Given this study and conclusions, the district will have pertinent information
necessary to continue to address concerns and to grow programmatic experiences that
include the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. Philosophical
differences exist in research related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and
overall expectations for a student receiving special education services. Information
collected in this study would support this research. By studying this topic, considerable

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

99

insights have been gained on teacher perspectives, comfort and effectiveness, observable
inclusionary practices and needs related to the implementation of inclusionary special
education practices.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

100

References
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et. seq. (1990).
https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/
Arundel, K. (2022, September 23). Study: Students with disabilities in inclusive classes
achieved at higher levels. K-12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/studyshows-benefits-of-inclusive-classes-for-students-with-disabilities/632530/
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special
Education, 22(4), 245-255.
Bell, L. (2011, Spring). Carol Tomlinson on differentiation. Curry Magazine, 1-3.
Bowen, J. (2020, March 11). Ask the expert. College of Education News.
https://ced.ncsu.edu/news/2020/03/11/ask-the-expert-what-is-inclusive-educationa-beneficial-way-to-teach-students-of-all-abilities-side-by-side-says-assistantprofessor-jamiepearson/#:~:text=Pearson%20says%20that%20inclusive%20education,that%20ar
e%20acc
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, l. (1998). Competing visions for educating students with disabilities:
Inclusion versus full inclusion. Childhood Education, 74(5), 309-316.
Gaskin v. Pennsylvania, 389 F. Supp. 2d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/gaskin-vcommonwealth/#:~:text=We%20filed%20the%20lawsuit%20Gaskin,as%20requir
ed%20by%20the%20IDEA
Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (1978). Exceptional children: Introduction to special
education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

101

Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, § 300.39 (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for
inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2009), 535-542.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). Core principles: Full inclusion of
all students with learning disabilities. https://ldaamerica.org/core-principles-fullinclusion-of-all-students-with-learning-disabilities/
Lengyel, L. S., & Vanbergeijk, E. (2021, June). A brief history of special education
milestones in the first 50 years. EP Magazine, 25-29.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Coteaching in middle school classrooms under
routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with
disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disability Research &
Practice, 20(2), 79-85.
Nagro, S., Markelz, A., Davis, R., Macdeonia, A., & Monnin, K. (2022). The evolution
of access to education through landmark legislation, court cases, and policy
initiatives setting precent for the Gary B. court decision. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 33(4), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221094806
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study on
inclusion: Overview and summary report. NCERI Bulletin, 2(2).
Pennsylvania Chapter 14: Special education services and programs, 22 Pa Code § 14.1 et

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

102

seq. (2008).
https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/022
/chapter14/chap14toc.html
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Special education plan information.
https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Special%20Education/Planning/Pages/default.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2017, October). Basic education circular:
Placement options for special education. https://www.education.pa.gov/PolicyFunding/BECS/PACode/Pages/PlacementSpEd.aspx
Pennsylvania State Data Center. (2022, June). Special education data report school
year 2021-2022: Upper St. Clair SD. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/PublicReporting/Data-at-a-Glance
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a, October). Formative
assessment: Monitoring the progress of students who have IEPs.
https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Formative-Assessment-Monitoring-theProgress-of-St
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018b, October).
Supplementary aids and services.
https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Supplementary-Aids-and-Services
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2019, November). Preparing
for an IEP team meeting. https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Teachers-DeskReference-Preparing-for-an-IEP-Team
Rodriguez, J. A,. & Murawski, W. (2020). Special education law and practice: From

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

103

foundation to application. Plural Publishing, Inc.
The Understood Team. (n.d.). The difference between accommodations and
modifications. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-difference-betweenaccommodations-and-modifications
United States Department of Education. (2022, November 7). A history of the Individuals
with Disabilities Act. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History
United States Department of Education. (2017, December 7). Questions and answers
(Q&A) on U.S. Supreme Court case decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County
School District Re-1. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/questions-and-answers-qa-on-u-ssupreme-court-case-decision-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district-re1/#:~:text=The%20Court%20overturned%20the%20Tenth,than%20de%20minimi
s%E2%80%9D%20educational%20benefit
Upper St. Clair School District. (2022). Special education plan.
https://www.uscsd.k12.pa.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=19
Vandercook, T., Bowman, J., Ghere, G., Martin, C., Leon-Guerrero, R., & Sommerness,
J. (2021). Comprehensive inclusive education: General education &the inclusive
IEP. University of Minnesota, TIES Center.
Western Governors University. (2020, January 9). Special education: History, resources,
advice. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/special-education-history-resourcesadvice2001.html#close
Young, N. D., Bonnano-Sotriopoulos, K., & Smolinkski, J.A. (2018). Making the grade:
Promoting positive outcomes for students with learning disabilities. Rowman &

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

104

Littlefield Publishers.
Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education
services?: Is one place better than another. The Journal of Special Education,
37(3), 193-199.
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., &Volonino, V. (2009) What, where, and how? Special
education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189-204.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

105

Appendix A
Semi-Structured Interview Guide
Please note: This semi-structured interview guide may be further developed based on a need for
additional questions to solicit more information dependent upon a participant’s response. The
clarifying questions or requests will be within the scope of the action research study. Therefore,
this guide also has the potential to be further developed based upon questionnaire, document
analysis, and participant response. Additional questions for fact finding or clarification will be
noted by the interviewer.
Opening: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview and to take time to provide me
with information related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. My goal is
to provide both general and special educators with recommendations to enhance the overall
experience for students and teachers related to the implementation of inclusionary practices.
Your willingness to participate and provide me with your insight are greatly appreciated. Your
participation remains voluntary and at any time during this interview, you may elect to withdraw
your participation. Your information will be destroyed immediately and another individual may
be asked to participate. This interview will take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
1. What do you teach? (Content area, grade level, etc.)
2. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
3. Discuss your perception on the effectiveness on the inclusionary practices that were identified
in the questionnaires that were presented and from the IEP analysis. (Question #1 ex. Discuss the
effectiveness of co-teaching. Discuss the effectiveness of aide support in the classroom.)
4. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most comfortable, how would you rate your comfort level
in implementing inclusionary practices? Explain.
5. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most effective, how would you rate your effectiveness in
implementing inclusionary practices? Explain.
6. Have you received professional development on the implementation of inclusionary practices
within a general education classroom? If yes, what type of professional development have you
received?

7. What parental feedback have you received related to the consistencies or inconsistencies of the
implementation of inclusionary practices for their child?
8. Have you received any student feedback related to the consistencies or inconsistencies of the
implementation of inclusionary practices? If so, what feedback have you received?

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

106

9. What role does the student play in the implementation of inclusionary practices? Does
developmental readiness, grade level, etc., play a role in the implementation?
10. In order for you to more effectively implement consistent inclusion practices, what do you
need? What recommendations or suggestions would assist you?

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

Appendix B
General Education Teacher Questionnaire
Question
1. How would you define inclusionary
practices for special education students in
your classroom?
2. How many students with IEPs do you
currently have in your class(es)?
How many periods/blocks a day do you
have with students receiving special
education supports and services through
an IEP?
3. Do you feel that inclusionary practices
are implemented consistently across your
own classes? (Y/N)
Grade levels?
Content areas?
4. If you have identified that
inconsistences are observed/do exist,
identify the inconsistences that students
experience.
5. What would you identify as reasons to
why inclusionary practices are
implemented consistently or
inconsistently for the students on your
special education caseload?
6. Do you feel that you contribute to a
student’s IEP and recommendations for
supports in a meaningful manner?

Response

107

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES
Appendix C
Special Education Teacher Questionnaire
Question
1. How would you define inclusionary
practices for special education students in
your classroom/on your roster?
2. How many students with IEPs do you
currently have on your roster?
3. Do you feel that inclusionary practices
are implemented consistently across your
own classes? (Y/N)
Grade levels?
Content areas?
4. If you have identified that
inconsistences are observed/do exist,
identify the inconsistences that students
experience.
5. What would you identify as reasons to
why inclusionary practices are
implemented consistently or
inconsistently for the students on your
special education caseload?
6. How do you gather input from general
education teachers to develop an IEP with
appropriate inclusionary supports and
services?

Response

108

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

109

Appendix D
IEP Checklist
1. Student grade Level:
2. Goal areas (Check all that apply):
_____Math

_____Reading

___Writing

____Organization

____Behavioral

____Other (________________)
2. In what classes are “scheduled supports” provided? Check all that apply and indicate
additional areas:
____Math
Arts

___ELA

___Science

____Social Studies

____Electives/Expressive

____Other

3. What percentage of time does the student spend in the general education setting? ____
4. Type of special education support:_________________
5. What percentage of time during the school day does the student participate in the general
education setting? ________ Receive special education supports and services? _________
6. Review the student’s IEP and identify if any of the following specially designed instruction
and/or supports are included in the IEP:
Inclusionary Practice
Small Group Instruction
Extended Time
Small Group Testing
Co-Teaching (Scheduled
supports)
Peer Group/Social Skills
Aide Support

Frequency

Specific to provide consistent
implementation?

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

Assistive Technology
(Explain)
Organization Support
Small Group Review
Notetaking Support
Collaboration with general
education staff, related
service providers
Executive Functioning
Support (Explain)

Prompt to Stay on Task

Other:

Other:

Other:

Has this IEP been updated throughout the duration of the IEP to add any supports/services?
________Yes
If yes, rationale for modification:

_________No

110

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

111

Appendix E
Semi-Structured Interview Guide Disclosure
I am conducting an action research study to investigate the inconsistent implementation of
inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across grades, classrooms, and content areas.
As a part of this study, you will voluntarily participate in a semi-structured interview that asks
you questions related to the implementation of inclusionary practices across your grade level,
content areas, and your own classroom.
You have been selected to participate in this study as either a general educator or special
educator in order to gain insight on the implementation of inclusionary practices from a variety
of individuals supporting students who receive inclusionary supports through their individualized
education plans (IEPs).
You will be asked a series of questions in this interview related to the research topic. During the
interview, I will be typing detailed notes of your responses to the questions. Your name will be
kept confidential; however, due to the purpose of the study, your grade level, content area, and
whether you are a general educator or special educator will be documented.
Minimal risk has been identified for you as a participant in this research study. Risk would be
isolated to you individually based on your perception and comfort around the study. The
minimal identified risks are reasonable given that reflecting on teaching and learning is a best
practice for professional growth.
The anticipated benefits of the study would provide general and special educators with
recommendations and conclusions for a more consistent implementation of inclusionary
practices in grades 7-9 across content areas, grade levels, and classrooms. As a result, the
student and teacher experiences are not as varied and will hopefully create an even stronger
culture for learning in the classroom setting.
All responses will be kept confidential in a secure network and through the research process will
be reported in a manner that will not identify you as a participant. I do plan to present the
findings and recommendation as a published study. In addition to my access, committee chairs
may have access to data as necessary. However, once again, your participation is voluntary. In
addition, you may opt out of the study at any time.
If you have any questions about this action research study, please contact me, Amy Pfender,
researcher, at 724-747-6534 or Pennsylvania Western University Assistant Professor, Dr. Todd
Keruskin at tkeruskin@pennwest.edu. Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University
California Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective month/date/year and expires
month/date/year.
By signing below, you agree to participate in this interview for the purpose of this research
study.
_________________________
_________________________
_______
Signature
Printed Name
Date

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

112

Appendix F
Participation in Questionnaire for General and Special Education Teachers Disclosure
I am conducting an action research study to investigate the inconsistent implementation of
inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across grades, classrooms, and content areas.
As a part of this study, you will voluntarily participate in the completion of a questionnaire that
asks you questions related to the implementation of inclusionary practices across your grade
level, content areas, and your own classroom.
You have been randomly selected to participate in this study as either a general educator or
special educator in order to gain insight on the implementation of inclusionary practices from a
variety of individuals supporting students who receive inclusionary supports through their
individualized education plans (IEPs).
You will be asked to complete a questionnaire that should take no more than 20 minutes to
complete. The questionnaire will be provided to you via Google Forms through your school
district email. The questionnaire will include a series of questions related to the research topic.
Your name will be kept confidential; however, due to the purpose of the study, your grade level,
content area, and whether you are a general educator or special educator will be documented.
Minimal risk has been identified for you as a participant in this research study. Risk would be
isolated to you individually based on your perception and comfort around the study. The
minimal identified risks are reasonable given that reflecting on teaching and learning is a best
practice for professional growth.
The anticipated benefits of the study would benefit general and special educators by providing
recommendations and conclusions for a more consistent implementation of inclusionary
practices in grades 7-9 across content areas, grade levels, and classrooms. As a result, the
student and teacher experiences is not as varied and could create an even stronger culture for
learning in the classroom setting.
All responses will be kept confidential in a secure network and through the research process will
be reported in a manner that will not identify you as a participant. I do plan to present the
findings and recommendation as a published study. In addition to my access, committee chairs
may have access to data as necessary. However, once again, your participation is voluntary. In
addition, you may opt out of the study at any time. By clicking continue, you are giving your
consent to participate in this questionnaire.
If you have any questions about this action research study, please contact me, Amy Pfender,
researcher, at 724-747-6534 or Pennsylvania Western University Assistant Professor, Dr. Todd
Keruskin at tkeruskin@pennwest.edu.
Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University California Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 10/18/2022 and expires 10/17/2023.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this questionnaire.

INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES

113

Appendix G

Institutional Review Board
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear Amy,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
"Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education
Practices in Grades 7-9” (Proposal #PW22-039) has been approved by the
PennWest Institutional Review Board as amended with the following stipulations:

Please provide clarification about where the semi-structured interviews will take place
and how confidentiality will be ensured. After this information is provided proposal
will be approved.
Once you have completed the above request you may immediately begin data
collection. You do not need to wait for further IRB approval. At your earliest
convenience, you must forward a copy of the changes for the Board’s records.
The effective date of the approval is 10/18/2022 and the expiration date is
10/17/2023. These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions
or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any
events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 10/17/2023 you
must file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please
contact instreviewboard@pennwest.edu. Please notify the Board when data
collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Chair, Institutional Review Board